Melissa McGuire

War is an aberration of human behavior.  That said, I cannot support this war.  I could not support any war. I support our troops.  I want them to come home.  I want our folks here to go to work, tuck in their kids and kiss their loved ones.  This is forever and always why I cannot support war, it is simply not right.  We are made to love from all three levels of our being and as always the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

You see, ordinary human behavior is often abnormal.  Any kind of violence is abnormal.  This is from thousands of years of conditioning passed down to us through our parents and their parents and so on.  Violence appears to be a normal part of human existence because it has become ordinary.  We got used to it.

As humans beings, however, we have the potential to be extra-ordinary.  We have the capacity to wonder about our creation, our evolution, our origins and ourselves.  We wonder if there is anything else and if so, what?  This is a universal principle.  Hell, even the agnostics, atheists and existentialists I know want answers to those same questions.  The big, “Who am I?”

Science and religion really aren’t all that different from one another when it comes down to the answers they seek.  Both want to know the origins of the universe and ourselves. While scientists will posit theories and revise statistics over and over, religionists will fervently, blindly, and without question, stick to  whatever they were told and defend that  “knowledge” to the death.

 We need both science and religion.  We need to question everything, and when we have questioned and come to an experience of something—even something as simple as waking up with a smile—then there is no need to defend this “thing.” 

You see, true faith, or, knowledge via experience, is unquestionable, but comes from questioning.  True faith cannot be taken from a person, so it needs no defending.  True faith is something that I cannot impart to you and you cannot impart to me — you and I must experience it individually.  There are things that are known that science can never prove, and events science can prove to be “real” but are contrary to reality.  

Everyone is taught that war is an unfortunate necessity at times and we must always be prepared for wars and still maintain our hope for peace. Einstein said that “we cannot simultaneously prepare for peace and war.” 

When we collectively clear our heads we may begin to understand that our brothers and sisters across the world are connected to us.  We eat, breathe, and bleed just like them. 

Perhaps this may make you stop for a moment and look past the superficial things like religion and skin color, in which not one of us had any choice. Going to war over values and beliefs in which we had no choice and which were imposed on us for the sake of a certain way of life, a religion or tradition is wrong.  It is crap.

Your coffee, by the way, came from a far corner of the world and has been handled and processed by many people of races and beliefs different from your own, and is now all poured right into your cup. Isn’t that the most marvelous thing?
Headlines

Andrew MacPhail

The truth lies in government propaganda. —Andrew D. MacPhail

“Has the United States government left its citizens guessing?” Noam Chomsky’s Theory of Transformational Syntax posits that such a question must derive from the statement, “The United States government has left its citizens guessing.”

The government gives Americans many respectable reasons for the second Gulf War: to eliminate stashes of biological and chemical weapons, to stop a military dictator from gaining enough strength to become another Germany, and to crush a main source of Osama bin Laden’s support, to name a few.

But Noam Chomsky’s address, “Iraq and Imperial Ambition,” reminds us that we should not let our government’s rhetoric go unquestioned. Many nations doubt the United States’ supposedly altruistic motives for this war, and with good reason.

The government led citizens down trails paved with both truth and lies during the Vietnam conflict, during the Cold War era, during the early 1980’s scares involving Grenada and Nicaragua, and even during the original Gulf War.

While Chomsky’s implicit suggestions of an American aspiration to world conquest seem far-fetched, his analysis outlines a troublesome set of facts that spell confusion for the public.

United States media reporting comprises selectivity and bias. While many newspapers, television news shows, and radio talk shows appear to be antiwar and seem to espouse a liberal viewpoint, the writers and hosts of these articles and programs continually imitate Dickinson by “telling the truth, but telling it slant.”

ABC, NBC, CNN, and other American stations concentrate on the technological supremacy and the efficient, effective progress of the Coalition forces.

BBC news, the mainstay of the news reporting for the other country in the Coalition paints a very different picture of the war, showing unedited pictures of the death and destruction.

But both media groups fail to address the motivations underlying the assault.

The United States’ justification of the attack using the United Nations Security Council’s code concerning “preemptive” strikes disguises the invention of a new brand of fighting that Chomsky calls “preventive war; a nice way of saying ‘attack whomever you please.’” The Security Council’s code regarding “preemptive” strikes authorizes any nation to counter the attack of another nation, provided said attack is in progress; however, it does not authorize the creation of an initial attack.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act could be used in unconstitutional ways by violating citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights and by contradicting the long history of precedents ensuring personal privacy for United States citizens regardless of race or religious affiliation.

The proposed Patriot II legislation would allow the Attorney General to strip a citizen of citizenship based on presumptions concerning that citizen’s possible future crimes against the state.

Another proposed bill, if passed, would grant the Vice President the power to unconditionally and unilaterally classify documents. Chomsky asserts, based on a Reagan Administration information leak, that the declassification of formerly classified material fattens File 13, not the public file.

At home and abroad, the United States exhibits a new strain of McCarthyism. While Chomsky warns that unabated activity of this type will lead down a slippery slope of Fascist activity that will make the United States into the ultimate rogue state, citizens without reliable sources for balanced information must confront difficult questions.

From the mutual shadow of Communism and Fascism, the American mind begs to know:

•Why do government agencies hide information — to protect the United States from terrorist attack, or to conceal a witch hunt?

•Why don’t news agencies focus on the real reasons behind the war — because they can’t find them, or because they’re paid not to discuss them?

 •Will we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — because Iraq couldn’t hide them well enough or destroy them before we arrived, or because we put them there so that we could find them?

American citizens have reason to grow both weary and wary of the struggle. If they accept what they’re told at face value, they may not know the truth; nevertheless, if they question what they’re told, they may be subject to political profiling and the treatment that goes with it. The even more maddening paradox is that since history is written by the winners of war, the only way Americans will know the truth is if America loses the war — a stiff price to pay, no matter how much anyone may sympathize with the opposition.

With choices like this, Bush is right: Americans need to pray, and pray hard.
Headlines

Nick Bahl

Dr. Noam Chomsky is a brilliant linguist.  Only a genius of language could have such a following, say so much, and at the same time, say nothing at all.  Chomsky’s lecture Friday night contained a plethora of material for any student of logic to dissect.  But what did Chomsky actually say?

“What are some solutions?” asked the first questioner.

“I think we all know them,” replied Chomsky.

That same question was on my mind throughout the whole lecture because I noticed he never offered a single solution. 

Chomsky started out by attacking the foundations of America.  The founding fathers were afraid of mob-rule and as a result they formulated our government accordingly.  They set our government up in a democratic way, but in a way that everyone had a say and no one had control.  Chomsky obviously has a problem with this.  He may believe in true democracy, but America was not set up as a true democracy and by attacking our foundation, he attacks America as a whole.

His argument then moved from anti-American rhetoric to fallacy by frequently referring to the United States as the first superpower and “public opinion” as the second.  He attempted to convince the audience that this war must be wrong because a minority of people around the world is against it.  Since when does a majority prove anything?  A majority opinion may still be  very incorrect.

Recently, an Anti-War Auraria Officer made the same argument when I was told that, “before the war began, an international protest of 600 million people occurred.”  This was the answer I got when I asked how this war was going to affect daily life in America.  Despite the fact that this answer had nothing to do with the question, it shows the majority argument at work.  President Bush called these protesters a “focus group,” and rightly so.  Chomsky attempted to make a fallacious argument that didn’t apply because he didn’t even have a majority.

After an hour of fallacy number one, he moved right along to his second argument.  Ad hominem arguments go as such:  bash the character of the other side in order to damage the perception of them, then move on to your unrelated point.

Chomsky claimed that previous Republican administrations tried to scare people, while he scared people with his conspiracy theories.  He then went on to say that these administrations ran budget deficits.  Finally, he claimed that the current Bush Administration “represents extremely corrupt corporate power.”  However, his main complaint was against the Reagan Administration.

Ronald Reagan was a champion of the middle class.  Reagan saved the American steel industry.  The left loves to criticize Reagan’s protective tariffs because the left claims to believe in neoclassical economics.  In short, giving up American sovereignty to international organizations.  Also, because they don’t want the American people to know that tariffs protect the dissolving American middle class.  If the left can no longer shout about how the right supports the rich, where does that leave them?

Once the economic character attack was complete, he made it clear that he doesn’t agree that the United States needs to police the world, but that he doesn’t believe in isolationism either.  This is a huge contradiction.  He never gave us anything solid!

Chomsky never stopped complaining and placing blame.  How typical is this?  He said nothing by offering nothing.  When did we start regarding people who do nothing but complain as great political minds who should mold and form policy?  Chomsky will never rightly be considered great because he has never and will never offer a solution to any problem.  Dr. Chomsky: stop pretending to offer solutions by illogically preaching unrelated, irrelevant history.  What good is he to anyone other than a student studying incorrect uses of logic?
Headlines

Justin Breuer

Veteran war reporter Peter Arnett reminded us this last week that the light of patriotism can be blinding.  Arnett was fired from NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic for giving an interview to Iraqi television.

Arnett’s tone and diction in the interview leave very little room open for debate as to Arnett’s opinion of the handling of the war with Iraq by the Bush Administration.  Arnett goes as far as to say, “The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan.” 

Arnett made the foolish choice to grant an interview with Iraqi television, as opposed to just an Arab network like Al-Jazeera.  Iraqi television is the direct mouthpiece of Saddam’s regime, an obvious propaganda tool almost to the point of ridicule as evidenced by news anchors in full military uniform.

It is fair to say that Arnett’s interview did aid the Iraqi regime, if in nothing else but the realm of pubic opinion.  However, to label Arnett as a traitor is both foolish and incorrect.

To provide some contrast to Arnett there is the blundering Geraldo Rivera.  Rivera has been openly supportive of the Bush Administration, but through his incompetence he gave away the position and tactical war plan of the troops he was embedded with. 

Rivera cast unit cohesion into disarray by dividing the troops in regard to their view of him.  Half the troops supported Rivera, perhaps in part because he had the ability to help them communicate with loved ones back in the States.  Let’s just say the other half wouldn’t be overly distraught if Rivera got hurt. 

Rivera was finally removed after two days by order of the military, but is still in employment with Fox News.  The double standard has been established.

Those reporters who support the war are allowed to make mistakes; those who disagree with the war are not. 

Another double standard is the media coverage of anti-war protests.  All the networks have taken to differentiating between anti-war protests and support-the-troops demonstrations.  Pro-war rallies are not distinguished from support-the-troops demonstrations.  This type of distinction implies that anti-war protesters are not in support of the troops. 

When asked about the inherent bias of this distinction, the prevailing logic is that some anti-war protesters represent a “radical fringe element” that do not support wars or the militaries that fight them.  There is no mention of a radical fringe element that would support war but not our troops, like John “the American Taliban” Walker or the member of our military who threw the grenade into his commanding officer’s tent.

It is never wise to use a radical fringe element to justify the treatment of a mainstream movement.

NBC’s initial reaction to Arnett’s interview was to support him.  In a statement Sunday, NBC News spokeswoman Allison Gollust said, “His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy and was similar to other interviews he has done with media outlets from around the world.” She went on to say that, “His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more. His outstanding reporting on the war speaks for itself.”

A day later, Arnett was fired.

It would have been one thing if Arnett blatantly lied to support the Iraqi Regime, but all he did was to tell the truth as he saw it.  If blame is to be given it should fall on the shoulders of the politicians who painted an overly optimistic view of the war before it began. 

If there is one thing to take away from this mess, it’s that for all our media’s talk of being fair and balanced there is a riptide of bias threatening to pull our heads down and keep us in the dark.
Headlines

Joel Tagert

“We don’t lack tools,” said Noam Chomsky in his recent talk at the Auraria Events Center.  “We lack will.”

This answer, given in response to a woman asking about methods of resisting injustice, is very interesting.  Chomsky pointed out that prior movements – the struggles of civil rights, labor, women’s suffrage, Satyagraha in India – had left us with a legacy of activism proven to be effective.  Why then have we been unable to stop this eminently unjust war in Iraq?  “We lack will.”

Chomsky points a finger right back at us.  Of course,  as a nation, we not only lack will; we also lack an educated populace.  People are unlikely to gain the will to end a war if they believe that the slaughter is somehow just, and their beliefs are intentionally manipulated by the establishment through the corporate media.

However, as individuals, we must ask ourselves if we personally have the will to reprioritize our lives in order to prevent the needless murder of thousands.  What are our lives worth?  What is the life of another person worth to us?  And how can we reprioritize for  peace without neglecting our short-term and long-term needs?

Mohandas Gandhi took these questions seriously, and was known for his iron will – a stubbornness that could change the world.  No step was too drastic for the Mahatma.  To build this spiritual power, he fasted regularly, took a vow of celibacy, lived for years on only fruit and nuts, and got rid of every worldly possession that was not strictly necessary to sustain his life.  When a well-wisher gave his wife some jewels, Gandhi sold them and gave the money to the movement.

As you might expect, this didn’t go over well with his wife, and Gandhi has often been accused of mistreating his family.  In reading his autobiography, I tend to agree with the accusers,  but still, it was just this determination to find the truth at all costs that allowed him to work ceaselessly for Indian independence.

The students camping by the flagpole are engaged in this kind of self-examination, engaged in finding that balance between the utter necessity of resistance to injustice and fulfilling their personal needs.  They are making the sacrifices necessary to sustain a movement, often against their self-interest.  By the time this article is published, I hope to be camping out there with them, if only for a couple of days.

Martin Luther King Jr. said: “…The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be.  Will we be extremists for hate or for love?  Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

King wrote those words from a jail in Birmingham.  He had made his choice.  We are left to make ours.
Headlines

The Gadfly
Brian P. Reed
The Metropolitan

Dear Katie Piz,

I dare say that meeting your friend, “Flat Stanley,” has re-reminded me of life’s meaning.

I’m sure I was introduced to you last Thanksgiving.  I was the goofy guy.

I know that you have pictures of “Flat” with the snowman, his trip to Red Rocks, and others.  I want to introduce myself to you and and your classmates.  I am, “The Gadfly”.  Kind of like The Walrus, “Goo Goo G’Joob.”

My column is about hope.  I call myself a “Gadfly” because I respect Socrates, the first western philosopher who created a concept referred to as “education.”  I, too, want to be a philosopher/teacher.

My column is about the future.  Trust me.

A few aphorisms:

• Simplify.  Simplify.

• There is truly a difference between being hungry and asking for more and being a moron.

• Question Authority.

• What does not destroy you makes you stronger.

•Do not be afraid to cry or yell.

•Whether you think you can or can’t. you’re right.

•As mean as people are, they can still be nice.

•When confronted once, offer an olive branch.  When confronted twice, use the olive branch as a weapon.

•Nothing happens without (a) reason.

•There is no reason, only love.

•Live each day as though it were your last.

•Life has no meaning.  It is meant to be lived.

•While you are young, never sleep unless you are tired.

•Honestly, love your mom and dad, your sister or brother, and your entire family (in the big sense). 

•Keep your cards close.   

•Do not lie/deceive (Unless apriori)

•Do not drag on the dragon.

•You are the master of YOUR destiny, not the destiny of others.

•Someone will “get it,” while others lie  stately  by.

•Trust is not a four letter word.

•Our exploring will have no end until we meet our beginning for the first time.

•There is no difference between the three wise men and the Three Stooges, except a word.  And everything must be this way.

And, most important, understand that you have a vested interest in the future of mankind and I will not live forever.  Forgive me, I am not a vampire. 

Truth is.   Have I been misunderstood?
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.