In the glorious world of today’s music we find ourselves wrapped up in the beauty of the musician and not the talent they possess.

Music has made a change for the worse in the decade of money and wealth.  Many musicians nowadays aren’t writing their own music, nor playing original riffs.  Songs are becoming over flooded with love, emotions and horrible break-ups, which everyone will go through at some point in their lives.

Whatever happened to Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, and Led Zeppelin? The freedom to express a situation or memory with words that no one but the artist could describe and relate it to everyone.  This has become the past of musically inclined talent. Now, bands are using other peoples’ words and thoughts, and ending up singing other peoples’ lyrics with their own style.

Music is about originality, individuals that create their own lyrics, play differently than anyone else, and add percussion where no one has dared.

Whatever happened to the creativity we possess as humans? Have we given it to the materialistic obscure world of consumerism? Who ever said musical talent required 20 choreographed dancers and on voice to “woo” the audience into listening to it; showing nothing but glitter and gold to influence listeners.

Where are the musicians that play their guitars everyday until their hands are so callous they can’t continue? Or the original 4-piece band, (guitar, bass, drums, and vocals) that would practice every night to perfect an original sound that they could appreciate.

Music has turned to the copycat era, where 3 chords throughout the whole song sounds interesting if strummed in a different manner. Where a voice is so close to the next existing performer that they might as well share the same name.  Where originality is led to what people listen to instead of what people feel in their hearts.  Music isn’t something that should be played in an effort to be heard; but, because it creates a mood, a feeling, an aura between the talents that when put together don’t sound good, but fulfill the musician's’ soul.

All of us are musicians in some way, whether it’s the way we sing while alone in the car, the guitar we picked up at 4 years old, or the piano lessons our parents made us take.  I’m trying to find musicians on the Metro State campus that can groove, slap a bass, play the harmonica, add a tambourine, stroke the 12-string, pluck the banjo, spin or scratch records.

Any musician looking for exposure through the Metropolitan newspaper, I will gladly help you or your band.

E-mail:  Rollo152@aol.com
Headlines

Andrew MacPhail

To be or not to be: that is still the question. 

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike hover at the brink of outburst just below the surface of everyday life, restrained by flimsy but effective societal constructs that cause many citizens to hide their feelings concerning abortion rights and the issues that surround it.

But the tension inside the Turnhalle was palpable during the question-and-answer session following Sarah Weddington’s address on the legal state of reproductive rights in America thirty years after she won the support of the Supreme Court for her arguments during Roe v. Wade.

Pro-choice voters greeted conservative dissenters with taunts, protests, and outcries of disbelief in response to poorly constructed arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and teary-eyed appeals to knee-jerk sympathy. The conflict of headstrong personal agendas with a misunderstanding of legal history built emotional walls of amazing height without any logical foundation on which to stand.

The battle for credibility concerning reproductive rights must be fought on a legal battlefield in order to be legitimate. Gaining a proper perspective on the unique characteristics of Roe v. Wade in an appropriate historical context is fundamental to establishing such credibility.

Just prior to Roe v. Wade, the Northern District Court of Texas declared that Texas Penal Code, Articles 1191-1194 and 1196, were unconstitutional due to invasions of privacy guaranteed by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. By the time that same case from the Northern District Court had been called for hearing by the Supreme Court, there was a significant “hole” in many states’ penal codes because suits to overturn similar laws in other states had been upheld in deference to the precedent set in Texas.

The key to defining the new legal standard concerning unborn human life fell to the Supreme Court.  The decision would have to be rooted in what the law considered to be a human life, but more specifically, what the law considered to be legally autonomous human life. 
Because there was no prior statutory precedent concerning the definition of unborn human life, Supreme Court Justice Burger cited the legal analysis of Mr. Justice Clark’s 1969 treatise, Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, in which Clark said, “The rites of Baptism are not performed and death certificates are not required when a miscarriage occurs. No prosecutor has ever returned a murder indictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. This would not be the case if the fetus constituted [in a strictly legal sense] human life.” (USSC 70-18, italicized clarification mine.) Justices Douglas and Stewart offered concurring arguments.

Clark clearly felt that the care of the fetus within the woman was her prerogative. Legally, he treated the care of the mother’s fetus much like he might have treated the care of the mother’s liver; the common ground being that the care of each was delegated wholly to the mother and that though the fetus or the liver might die, that the mother’s still being alive would negate any legal objection that could be brought.

The essence of this argument, upheld 7-2 in Roe v. Wade, presented an outrageous twist to the legal process. America’s judicial branch is predicated on the interpretation of the law, not on the creation of it. But Douglas, Stewart, and Burger reached into Clark’s work in order to create a working legal definition of unborn life.

In the absence of a precedent to guide them, no alternative existed except to legislate a definition of unborn human life in order to be able to accomplish the chief mission at hand: obtaining a constitutional interpretation of Roe’s suit, a class action suit on behalf of all women who might at any future point become pregnant.

With this pro-choice victory standing today, many scientists, clergy, and laymen remain adamant in their assertion that biological life begins at conception and so it has been clinically proven. However, the separation of church and state, by its very nature, dictates that although a religious contingent may establish a scientifically valid assertion, there is still no way to legislate morality.

Being granted this power by the law, however, does not mean that we need to use it, as [the first man to scale Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hilary said, “because it’s there.” There is nothing that can free anyone from his or her responsibility to value human life, for one who does not value human life does not even value himself or herself.

What must men and women do in light of this obligation? Contemplation and planning must be part of the process of answering such a question, because to act without thinking about procreation issues would create a sexual juggernaut of instant gratification, leaving responsibility under the auspices of panic and hindsight.

Since our children are our future, can we possibly be successful in forming the future when we’re looking over our shoulder?
Headlines

Melissa McGuire

Well, I’m feeling wired today.  We’ve got quite a pot brewing in back.  Takes about nine months and it’s just about ready…

Sex is a wonderful and terrifying activity    with a tremendous amount of ignorance and misinformation surrounding it.

Let’s all step out into the sunshine, take a long, slow, deep breath and really discuss sex.  The objective being that we want to eliminate the need for abortions once and for all. 

Sex: (noun) a normal human biological function when used appropriately for the purpose(s) of (separately or together), pleasure, whole body physical tension release, childbearing, expression of love or closeness, and the experience of a heightened state of awareness (see Sufi poetry and the Kama Sutra). 

Of course, sex can be used inappropriately.  There are some who like the sport, which is all about conquest and prowess.  Some use sex as an anti-depressant, but I’ve heard they make actual anti-depressants for that purpose.  Some individuals use sex to gain dominance or control in varying degrees, from simple game playing to ruthless manipulation of their partner.

Unfortunately, many in our community see the solution to abortion as simply avoiding sex altogether. Please take the time to look up the Latin root for simple.  Further, certain groups discourage the activity of sex by telling everyone they encounter it is bad.  This, in particular, has always baffled me because in this segment of society, the belief is that human beings are made in the image and likeness of the Creator, which would mean no normal function of ours could possibly be bad in and of itself.  Used inappropriately, perhaps, but certainly not bad.

The hypocrisy here -- and I happen to know this for a fact -- is that good, upstanding people in our community have sex for purposes other than procreation.  I have known Born Again Christians who have cheated on their wives, hired ladies (or gents) of the night, and have even gotten to “know” their future spouses well before nuptials.  Some of these people who claim that intercourse is a bad thing, that fornicating is evil, that physical intimacy is unspeakable, get down and dirty in and out of wedlock, outside of wedlock (there’s an actual Commandment about that one) and sometimes in ways that would honestly make some even of us on the slightly deviant side of the road gasp in shock.  Busted!  All hypocrites may now leave the table.

Let’s get to “father’s rights.”  What do they do, really?  For those wonderful, loving, supportive fathers out there, not you, but many men/boys do this: phhhhhht, “Thanks hon,” then, insert complaints about moodiness and weight gain here, “I’ll put the paycheck in the bank but don’t ask me to change the diapers.” A few don’t even bother with the paycheck.  Basically, we women carry, birth and nurture the children.  So who really should get the final say?  I say we do.  Women.

Now to the women: we are the ones who carry, birth and nurture the children.  You are out of your ever-loving mind to ever trust a guy to provide birth control for you.  It’s your body, take care of it fer cryin’ out loud – or you’ll be hearing crying. Out loud. 

Education about sex and reproduction, respect for your own bodies, caring about when and with whom you fornicate, being fully aware  of and willing to be responsible for your choices,  will greatly reduce the need for termination of pregnancy.  This is the tough part.  We must educate our children and ourselves about the simple fact that babies come from sex.  Get over the morality and face the reality.  It is neither good nor bad, it just is. 

What I am seeing is a great deal of confusion, misinformation, lack of education, misunderstanding and fear about sex.  All of these things, (are you ready for this?) make sex more appealing to everybody.  Because everybody has just got to know what all the fuss is about.  If we make sex normal, we will alleviate a lot of complications and a lot of “curious exploration.”  Oops! 

What I would like to see is all consequences of sex either anticipated, or welcomed joyously when unexpected.  Therefore, I propose that if you have never found yourself saying: “to givebirth or not to give birth, that is the question,” (may the Bard forgive me for bastardizing his famous quote), then excuse yourself totally and permanently from the discussion. Yes, boys, that means you. 

Ideally, there would never be a need to make these choices. We can all hope and/or pray for a more enlightened world. In the meantime, we need to keep abortion safe and legal.   

So, our special fermented brew, or just plain coffee?
Headlines

Nick Bahl

Early last week the Denver City Council approved a $347 million Convention Center Hotel.  It’s set just as the failed Ocean Journey was.  What were they thinking?  Maybe they weren’t.  Doesn’t Denver have more important things to spend tax money on, such as education, than corporate welfare?

Councilman Ted Hackworth asked numerous questions about the inconsistent price fluctuation in the cost of the hotel and the public risk.  He was unable to receive any satisfactory answers and the projects manager of revenue was noticeably shaking as she tried to come up with answers to his questions.  A frustrated Hackworth finally asked:  What the hell are we being asked to approve tonight?  Good question.

Our new welfare hotel will be built by a non-profit corporation, “The Denver Convention Center Hotel Authority,” financed by tax bonds, and leased to Hyatt.  Of course, the hotel will be monitored by the Denver City Council since the Denver Convention Center Hotel Authority is just a way to sidestep legal issues.  Since when is it the governments place to finance corporations?  Is it even legal?

Dave Kopel reports that “in a report to the people of Colorado, the 35 delegates to the State Constitutional Convention noted that ‘no subject has come before the convention causing more anxiety and concern’ than the subject of corporate welfare.”

Article XI, Section 2, of the state Constitution states that “neither  the state, nor any county, city, township or school district shall make any donation or grant to, or in aid of, or become a subscriber to, or shareholder in any corporation, public or private, in or out of the state.”  The Denver Convention Authority is a corporation and as such the whole project stands in opposition to the spirit of the state Constitution.

Unfortunately, in the 1930’s the Colorado Supreme Court created an extremely broad loophole stating that the government could entangle itself in corporate welfare and business if there was some “public purpose.”

What is meant by “public purpose” anyway?  I cannot disagree that this project will bring jobs, economic stimulus and other local benefits to Denver.  But how much and what are they?  If the benefits outweigh the risks, why aren’t corporations going it on their own?  Why aren’t tax incentives being offered instead of funding?  The risk absolutely must be substantial.

Denver has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, while boasting one of the highest college graduate rates.  Denver is one of the most expensive places to live in the country.  What does this tell us about Denver’s government?

Denver’s government is in the business of importing educated people by offering them high paying jobs, great living conditions, as well as a beautiful and fun city.  At the very time, they cater low paying jobs to Mexican immigrants, legal or not, and ignore the natives of our city.

Instead of aiding the citizens of other states by offering our college and business communities to them, why don’t we put the $347 million into a place that will  help local citizens live in our high priced city?  Put the money into our failing school systems!

Denver’s government neglected citizens in projects such as LoDo, Ocean Journey, Coors Field and Invesco Field.  the benefit of these things is far stronger for the outsiders Denver is courting.

Quit trying to help the local economy at the expense of the local citizens.  I can only imagine what $347 million would do for our school system.  Shouldn’t our government aid us, its citizens and leave business to the businesses?

Instead of aiding the citizens of other states …why don’t we put the $347 million into a place that will help local citizens?
Headlines

Letters to the Editor:
Metro is not open to all ideologies

Dear Editor:

I am an Metro sophomore and I am concerned about where my student activities fees are going in regard to guest speakers. So far, I have attended lectures from Cynthia McKinney, the former US House Representative from Georgia, Lani Guinier, who is a civil right lawyer and Harvard professor, as well as Mary Lou Salazar who’s father was Chairman of the Colorado Communist Party from 1960-1982. All of these speakers have some sort of left-leaning political activist stance. I have no problem with the challenge of today’s and yesterday’s ideas and ideologies, however I do have a problem with the lack of Republican voices. For every Liberal speaker, there should be a Conservative one as well, especially if many of our students are required to attend these lectures for a class. I am one such student who has experienced this problem. I am currently taking a Chicano Studies class and on the syllabus I am required to take notes and attend all of these lectures. I attended the Cynthia McKinney lecture and was bombarded with flyers protesting war and the lecture itself was filled with anti-Bush comments. The second speaker, Lani Guinier spoke about the “Tyranny of the Majority” and how affirmative action should remain in our schools. At one point during the lecture she remarked that rich people like Bush with a legacy from their parents are getting into colleges. The third speaker, Mary Lou Salazar spoke about her life growing up with a father active in the Communist Party. She talked about her dream of a communist America, and how schools preach anti-communism.

Although all of these speakers are prominent, passionate and had much to say, I am disappointed that Republicans or capitalists or “the other side” of all issues have not yet had a chance to speak on today’s issues. I thought Metro was an academic institution where all cultures, ideas, and views are embraced. So why do I come to class and see messages like “Bush is America’s Bully” being posted on every chalkboard? Why am I being forced to attend left-leaning lectures about how our government is a liar, and how our President is deceitful? Why are my classes being cancelled by my own professors because they want to attend an Anti-Bush/Anti-War rally on campus? Where are Conservatives being represented? I strongly encourage students to re-evaluate the political agenda of this institution. Is it really open to all ideologies? If so then why isn’t mine being represented? Metro should by all means keep the political speakers, but show our students all sides of the argument.

Ashley Kotik
Metro student
Headlines

The Gadfly
Brian P. Reed
The Metropolitan

•WARNING:  The Surgeon General has determined that reading this column without a BAC of less than .04 could be detrimental to your health.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

…Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

—William Butler Yeats

The Second Coming

Finally.  Cool.  The line has (or not) been drawn.

We live in archaic times.  By next week, we will be engaged in war, without the support of the United Nations, led by a fool who actually makes former vice-president Dan Quayle appear intelligent (“POTATOE”). 

One quarter of a million troops are awaiting George’s war; breathing with warm, tepid breath down Hussein’s neck, forcing him into sleeplessness, making him understand that the biggest, baddest, most sophisticated, well-funded and dedicated volunteer bunch of BAD-ASSES in the history of mankind are lying in wait to not only blow his brains out, but to piss down his decapitated, murderous, significantly under-evolved (his favorite novella is, by the way, The Old Man and the Sea, a small book which he has obviously, miserably failed to understand) pathetic, gelded, egocentric torso.  Cool.  The dude was, my guess is, simply,  found as a baby off someone’s old shoe like disgarded gum and has  bad karma.

Hard to believe, him being such a loving “family man.”  Hell, he not only experiments on Kurds, he has killed several members of his own family (nice guy, seems like a “five card” kind of guy).

Now we are rolling.

This is the most fortunate time to live in history.  However, when the American “imperialist pigs” finally allow for a “democratic republic” throughout the world to live in perfect harmony, as one country that is Earth, from where will (I say, weeping) our artistic catalyst come?

Hobbes, a philosopher, said that “nothing can be unjust.  The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place.  Where there is no common power, there is no law, no injustice.  Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.”

I ask you, is Saddam Hussein now destroying weapons after 13 years of skirting around an United Nations Security Council resolution (1441)  because he suddenly had a change of heart, or is he, quite simply, scared shitless?  You, chanting at the flagpole, looking like a bedraggled, unwashed dog, decide. Cool.
Headlines

The Metropolitan welcomes letters of 500 words or fewer on topics of general interest.

Letters must include a full name, school affiliation and a phone number or e-mail address.

Letters might be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.