Remember 9-11

It has been 360 years since the genocidal Oliver Cromwell set his troops upon the folk of Drogheda in Ireland, slaughtering every man, woman, child, elder, and every bit of livestock. He was slaughtering them for jolly old england. Let us never forget.

Green Grasshopper in a Rose

Questions

I guess now would be a good time to ask ourselves some questions.

Recently a young man, a marine, was killed in Afghanistan and a photograph was taken of him shortly before he died. The family didn't want it used, but the media showed it anyway, a desire to show the disgustingness of war. Our children dying. Other peoples children dying. Now we should ask ourselves some questions as it has come out that many heads in the military are questioning the motive of the increase of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are no clear goals, as they put it.

What is the war in Afghanistan about?

Many here in the states say it is for "freedom," but I don't feel more free. The economy is tanking. I just heard a story on Democracy Now of how a young woman was killed by her insurance company when they denied her transplant, then rescinded in time for her to die on her 17th birthday. Homelessness and unemployment are on the rise. The list goes on and on, so I can't really believe that the military is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for our "freedom." Just because we aren't quite slaves doesn't mean we are free.

No doubt that young man was brave, Loved, and vital to his family and community. Robert Gates had this to say about it:

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, condemned the decision by the news agency Associated Press to publish. "I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard's death has caused his family. Why your organisation would purposefully defy the family's wishes, knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish, is beyond me.

"Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling."

Ok, good question Mr. Gates. Here's some for you. Why did you send these folks son over to Afghanistan? What is the U.S. military there for? What are they trying to accomplish? What kind of compassion do you feel for folks when you send their children to die in a war that there is no clear reason why we are fighting it?

Afghanistan, like Iraq used to be, was rather progressive. In the '70's women were even wearing mini-skirts. Then the U.S., with the help of Zbignew Brzinski lead Russia to a prolonged war with Afghanistan which eventually led to Russia's economic collapse. The U.S., through the CIA helped finance the Mujahadeen, who became the Taliban and Al-Queda. Even helped train them. Ronald Reagan even called these folks the U.S. now calls enemies the equivalent of the founding fathers of this nation.

Prior to 9-11, as it were, Colin Powell made the joke we are running out of enemies.

9-11 happens with a lot of unanswered questions around that, and now Colin Powell has found lotsa enemies.

King Cheney and co-King Bush, Oil folks, decide to go to war with Al-Queda, and might as well bomb the folks of Afghanistan along with them, or instead of then. Soft targets are easier kills, as Reagan demonstrated in Central America in the '80's. Oddly, folks want to build a pipeline from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan through Afghanistan. Could this be why the U.S. is slaughtering the children of others by putting the children of its citizens lives on the line?

War is not pretty. There is nothing romantic about it. There is nothing adventuresome unless you are not taking up arms like Gates, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, etc., but profiting heavily from it.

The Oregonian had a headline the other day that with so many businesses heading downward, the only upward business turns out to be arms. Could this be why the U.S. is sending folks off to kill and be killed or otherwise damaged in Afghanistan and Iraq? What hell...HELL...has the U.S. put the people of these nations through with such genocidal business practices?

Can you tell me, Mr. Gates, why you sent this young man to his death? It certainly wasn't freedom? We can see that by just looking around us. We all know there is a lot of money to be made in killing the folks of other nations. Is that why you sent this young man off to be killed? Is that why you sent off all the others to kill and be killed? Are our soldiers still raping their female comrades? Are their female comrades still occasionally dying from dehydration by not drinking water in the evenings not wanting to go to the latrine during the night for fear of getting raped? What about Forward Base Falcon? I believe 10-10 will be the 3rd anniversary. I'll have to check my math.

"Land O Racism" Revisited

These are photos from a post I wrote on August 15, 2007 called "Land O Racism." It wasn't until about May of this year that I have started moderating comments and just a few days ago I received a comment on this particular post. This, I've discovered, happens fairly frequently, and I often have to research my own blog to find where the discussions are happening. Since I posted the comment and looked for the post it was attached to, I found a few other interesting comments. Since I wasn't moderating at the time, I had no idea these discussions were going on. If you wish to read all the comments, click on the link then click onto the comments at the bottom of the link.

The first one here is extremely sexist and racist and, of course, posted with a false name because few who spew this type of shit RARELY are brave folk:

Female Indianas were submissive in that period, their culture, not ours. Plus they did not have chairs in the plains so standing or kneeling is kind of common. Plus it makes it easier to get the land and lake in the frame. Get it. Land 0 Lakes?
If you hadn't cropped the picture you would notice that she is on elevated ground. Showing respect maybe?

Don't try to find racism or you create it.

Looking
Just Looking | 01.17.09 - 3:11 pm | #

The second is from a fella who claims that the model for the picture was his great grandmother who is Cherokee and thus I am full of shit when I say such stereotyping images are racist:

The lady on the Land o' Lakes logo is my great grandmother. Before you start throwing around incorrect statements, you should get your facts straight. First of all, she is Tsalagi, or "Cherokee", not plains. Second of all, she's a full blood Native American, not mixed. She was asked to model for Land o' Lakes because she was a very beautiful lady. I have the photos of her in her dress during the Land o Lakes photo shoot to prove it. Stop trying to create racist gossip, you clearly have no idea what your're talking about.
Nick | 04.13.09 - 10:47 am | #

This was my comment on the above comments:

Like your post, Nick. It is nice to know this is your grandmother and thank you for the history. It is still racist. Did the Tsalagi, Cherokee, truly dress in this manner traditionally? Are they really from the Minnesota region, or am I mistaken in thinking that it is Georgia or Florida that is the actual Land O Lakes area of the U.S.? Just because the model is Indian doesn't mean it is not racist. I'm sure the model for the "Redskins" logo was Indian. However, your grandmother is rather pale for a full-blood.

Female Indians were submissive?!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Eugene | Homepage | 09.07.09 - 5:52 am | #


Hattie McDaniel, the first African American Woman to receive an Academy Award, was constantly stereotyped as a maid. I don't judge her for this. As she put it one time when her community would complain about the racism involved in such stereotyping of black women she stated something like; better to be paid $500 a week portraying a maid that $5 a week actually being one. However, the manner in which she was portrayed on the movie and television screen were indeed stereotypical and racist. Just like an Indian woman from a Southeast tribe is used to portray an Indian woman from a great lakes tribe and is wearing a dress which is an attempt to look like a plains tribe. I mean, like the old saying goes, "We all look alike." One Indian is JUST like another. Thus, it is not racist when Umpqua uses a plains Indian head for their product when we Umpquas are from the coast and its river and wore different headresses altogether. But, since it is a plains Indian, and no doubt, modeled after a "real" Indian, it is thus not racist. I mean, who in their RIGHT MIND would use modern portrayals of Indians to sell products. I mean the racist Black Sambos and Frito Bandito were removed because they were racist. No doubt, they were modeled after people of those actual races. But, just like usual, it is OK to do this to Indians, and many Indians will approve of it. This is not unusual either. It is still racist. It is still sexist. It is still bullshit and dehumanizing.

Cuckoo?

K...Ken? K...Kesey? JacK...Ken...? NiKolsen...K...? PatricK...K...? Stewart...Samson?...

Will the real Kennewick Man please stand up?

THAT'S IT!

I'VE DISCOVERED THE MISSING LINK!

Jack Nicholson is THE MISSING LINK! He has TOO much hair to be white, and thus, is Indian whose ancestors were orignally Indian from Europe where white folk slaughtered them and stole their land!

Can someone help me write a mutli-million dollar grant for my study? Even if I'm wrong, my theory is absolutely true!

Toothsome Grin

KBOO!
Totally Toothsome Radio

Portland is a Real Toothsome Town 1

Portland is a Real Toothsome Town 2

Think You're So Big?
You Can Push That Stone
But Can You Pull This Tooth?

On the Grid

Photos

Sunflowers on a Cloudy Day 1

Sunflowers on a Cloudy Day 2

Our Newest Roommate

WE'VE WON!

Eli and I ate one of these peppers already.
HOT LITTLE THINGS!

"Uhhhh, can I get off at the next stop?"
"Sorry, mister, with cutbacks from the recession and all...
this is as far as we can take ya."

Pushers and Stoners

I SPOKE TOO SOON!

Having just got off the phone with Dean Lookinghawk, I discovered that Russell had to postpone until the 9-10 show as he will be on the road. If things work out and we have the Christopher Cornstalk folks on as well, I believe it will be an absolutely excellent show. My blood is starting to boil already.

So, it will be Martin Prechtel live and in the studio on Thursday 9-3, because his plane will show up on time. IT WILL SHOW UP ON TIME! (I hope that isn't just wishful thinking).

Otherwise, it will be the FCC and Supreme Court are Liars exercises.

Martin Prechtel and Ruseel Means

Since no one will argue with me about how the great science god has proven Kennewick Man to be white, excuse me, a white-lie; Since no one is explaining to me how their experiments went saying the word "fuck" to their children to prove the Supreme Court and FCC to be liars (maybe they are afraid the word may actually kill their children, or give them brain cancer), we shall move on.

[note: Speaking of how great children are treated in this country by the government which is so concerned about their welfare that they have made it law that the FCC can bring down community radio stations if they utter the word "fuck" or even insinuate it's existence (I am not kidding, I've had the FCC training at KBOO), I found this article from Common Dreams, "U.S Fairs Poorly in Child Welfare Survey." It turns out the U.S. spends $140,000 per child for education, etc. My question are: Where does that money go? How much goes to private corporations? How much to corruption? How much to bureaucratic red tape? What are the rules on spending this money? Sure, the U.S. spends that much per child, but I seriously doubt that even 50% goes to the child's actual welfare. I'd like to see an analysis of the books on this number. Not that anyone would actually do anything about it, but I'm sure it would be rather interesting considering how the U.S. ranks amongst the lowest of the "31 industrialized nations" in child welfare.]

On Thursday, September 3rd, KBOO's "Mitakuye Oyasin" will be interviewing Martin Prechtel and Russell Means.

Martin Prechtel will be live and in the studio. He is a Mayan medicine man who survived Reagan's holocaust against the Guatemalan's and other Central American nations back in the '80's. He is the author of many books including "Secrets of the Talking Jaguar," and more recently, "Stealing Benefacio's Rose." Plus he is an all round awesome fella.

Russell Means, if you don't know, and please don't tell me you don't know, is a long time activist and actor of the Lakota nation. He is an AIMster from back in the day, involved in Wounded Knee II and the first Indian takeover of Alcatraz. He also authored the book "Where White Men Fear To Tread." We will be interviewing Russell on the phone.

So tune on, Thursday, September 3rd, from 6-7pm PST and listen to our interviews and try some of the new "Prove the FCC and Supreme Court Liars Exercises."

We'll be speaking at you then!

"Mitakuye Oyasin" is a collective of alleged Native types who get together once a week and bend and twist your ears until you pay attention. We are currently: Dean Lookinghawk, Louis Sowa, and Eugene Johnson. We are always actively recruiting with very little success. However, Dean may have a few regular phone guests lined up.

Next week, on the 10th of September, thanks to the work of Dean Lookinghawk, we may be interviewing a few folks from the Christopher Cornstalk issue, I believe a family member and the person who started the website to end the professionals racist website against this man who has passed on.

DAMMIT!

California has what amounts to a giant garage sale in order to make money to run the state government?????? What the fuck is going on here!

Over 10,000 non-Bureau of Reclamation dams (only 350 of U.S. dams are controlled by the Bureau) are considered high hazard dams????? WTF!

Experiment

Before I request you to do a certain kind of experiment, should you be willing to put the lives of one or more children in danger, I request that you read the following quotes about the Supreme Court and the FCC.


Supreme Court Rules that Government Can Fine for 'Fleeting Expletives'

By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Supreme Court said yesterday that the Federal Communications Commission may penalize even the occasional use of certain expletives on the airwaves but left for another day the question of whether such a policy is constitutional.

The court's narrow ruling said the FCC -- prompted by Cher's use of the F-word during a 2002 live broadcast and similar remarks by what Justice Antonin Scalia called "foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood" -- was justified in changing its policy in 2004 to fine broadcasters up to $325,000 every time certain words are allowed on the air.

"The commission could reasonably conclude that the pervasiveness of foul language, and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media such as cable, justify more stringent regulation of broadcast programs so as to give conscientious parents a relatively safe haven for their children," Scalia wrote for the five-member conservative majority.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 07-582. Argued November 4, 2008--Decided April 28, 2009

Federal law bans the broadcasting of "any ... indecent ... language," 18 U. S. C. §1464, which includes references to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726. Having first defined the prohibited speech in 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a cautious, but gradually expanding, approach to enforcing the statutory prohibition. In 2004, the FCC's Golden Globes Order declared for the first time that an expletive (nonliteral) use of the F-Word or the S-Word could be actionably indecent, even when the word is used only once.


Now that you have read these quotes, here is the experiment I wish you to participate in, should you be a person of 18 years of age or older:

If you are 18 years of age or older, I want you to find a child who is 17 years and 364 days or younger all they way to just born. One will do, but you can find more if you like. Now, take this person who is legally described as a child and say a few words and phrases to them. The words and phrases I suggest are thus:

Fuck.

Shit.

I'm taking a shit.

You're parents had sex and that was how you were actually created. It wasn't the stork like your parents have lied to you.

Play them a blues song or a rock and roll song that has sexual references in it without using the deadly "f-word" or "s-word", referring to words so deadly the Supreme Court couldn't even write them in their decision. The words are, of course, fuck and shit.

If you have actually done this experiment, even if you used only one of the deadly words, I request that you observe what has happened to the child. Have they fallen down dead? Have they contracted a terminal cancer? Has their IQ points dropped BELOW zero? Has the child been otherwise traumatized by the use of the words or songs played or excretory functions described? Does the child seem normal? Has nothing harmful happened to the child with your "fleeting utterances" or song playing?

Now, since no harm has come to the children you have tried this experiment on, what conclusions can you make from the Supreme Court Case and the FCC? Children are not being harmed but the FCC and Supreme Court are claiming that such language which THEY deem indecent indeed do harm to children. Wouldn't that make them...LIARS? If they are lying (unless, of course, after uttering the word fuck to someone 17 years 364 days or less actually has hamred or killed them) why was such a decision made? Who can actually be hurt by a $325,000 fine? How is this related to "free speech"? *thinking* *thinking* *head ache forming*

I know that such public institutions like community radio or televion can be easily destroyed by allegations of indecent language. If they get destroyed, corporations could help relax regulations (as they've been attempting for years) and possibly purchase our public airwaves (all of which are legally public, but the FCC was formed in order to sell OUR airwaves to corporations). I wonder if it is actually the safety of children the FCC and Supreme Court have in mind, or maybe helping their profit motivated corporate pals in acquiring more of our public airwaves?

Since there are 8.6 million children in the U.S. without health care and the Supreme Court and FCC does nothing about that, I'd have to say that they are, AT BEST, disingenuous in stating their "fleeting expletives" decision has ANYTHING to do with the interests of children.

Nor does the U.S. and its various organizations, such as the Supreme Court and the FCC, give a RATS ASS about the systematic rape of children within various church organizations and other governmental style organizations. I mean, fuck, they don't even do a thing about the UN pedophile ring.

My conclusion (and yours possibly, too, should the child you experimented with not suddenly fall dead or have some serious trauma enacted upon them because of your utterance or song) is, the Supreme Court and FCC are FUCKED UP AND FULL OF SHIT! That the real reason, as stated in my conclusions of my "Guilt Ridden Catch Phrases" post, is "GOLD!" It is always about gold.The government doesn't give a fuck about children. If they did, those children would have health care and their systematic rape within various organizations like churches, boy scouts, the UN, various governmental organizations, etc., would be prevented and stopped. But it aint, is it?

Hmmm. I wonder what else the Supreme Court, FCC, and other such governmental organizations might be lying about?

Guilt Ridden Catch Phrases

Imagine...

I'm beating the living crap out of someone you Love, and for some reason you cannot stop me. I beat your Loved one so severely, they are left unconscious on the ground, possibly dead, and for whatever reason, there is nothing you can do about it.

Imagine a car pulls up and a man in a suit jumps out and examines the bloody body I left on the ground.

"There is no relationship between this bloodied human and that human that claims to Love them. In fact, as a scientist, I claim there is no relationship at all between this person and the one who claims to Love them, nor have they ever had a relationship. I should know! I'm a scientist, and scientists never lie. I have letters after my name and an office in a university."

He pulls out a pad and starts scribbling. "Thus," he says as he continues scribbling, "I am as infallible as the Pope. Heck, if the Pope can declare he can say and do no wrong because he is the Pope, then I, as a scientists, given the laws of universality, can claim that I can say and do no wrong and thus you all have to believe me without question.

"Now," he says as he finishes writing, "I claim this bloody mass as my own in the name of science and have just written a grant in which I will collect millions to do a study to prove that this person has NO connection to the person that claims to Love them."

I stand, overjoyed at this crazy justification of my bloody brutality.

Just then, another car pulls up. A person who knows something bad, something mean, just happened jumps out of their car, runs up and tells us all, "Can't we all just get along?"

GREAT! I smile to myself, further justification for my horrific and brutal actions. It doesn't get any better than this. Science man gets his money, guilt man gets to have his guilt alleviated by making his simplistic catch phrase. I get away with my crime. It just doesn't get any better than that!


The above story is motivated by a post I made almost two years ago on this blog about the fallacy and the bullshit of the Kennewick Man case. Folks just plain believe that: a) science does not lie, b) Kennewick Man was aged at 9,300 years old with radio carbon dating which is the most accurate dating system known to man, c) that Jamie Chatters did archaeology at the site, d) that Kennewick Man was white.

In a previous post with a link to the article there has been a study that states people are willing to believe big lies much more than small ones. Example: Many people did, and still do, believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the commercial jet liners being flown into the two towers of the world trade centers in 2001. People will take the first statement made, usually for propagandist purposes, and believe it until the day they die. The Hitler Youth are another good example. They couldn't believe that their beloved lord and master would do such horrible things to the Jews, Sinti, Roma, gays, lesbians, trade unionists, insane, etc. But, Hitler did.

Science, like everyone and everything else, is ran by folks we like to call...human beings. Humans have a tendency to be fallible. Humans make mistakes. Humans lie for their own gain. Humans believe lies even when they find out they are lies. Humans Love. Humans create beauty. Humans can be factual. Humans are curious. etc. Science is not the great omnipotent god so many folks enjoy believing it is and thus either corroborating or replacing the great infallible christian style god with another.

The truth about Kennewick Man is that THERE WAS NO SCIENCE DONE AT THE SITE! There were no careful digs, no mapping, no site report, no layer by layer study to corroborate the RC dating, nor any of the other glorious trappings required for the science of archaeology. Chatters did none of that, nor did anyone else. (Would you like to talk about the FELONIOUS permit Chatters was issued by the Corps of Engineers?) Vast amounts of evidence have thus been DESTROYED or CONTAMINATED by this man folks hold up as an archaeologist, when he is, if I remember correctly, a pre-historic climatologist or something like that. Tell me, all those who believe that this has been a TRULY scientific experiment, have you seen the photos of the dig? Have you seen the site report? Have you seen drawings of all of the other artifacts and the layers of sediment that went along with the remains? If you have, then you are dreaming and having some sort of fantasy life as NONE OF THIS SCIENCE HAPPENED! HELLO! SMART PEOPLE! HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING STUPID?

What was the science done around Kennewick's race? Well, the science with the study that has been done, which included three DNA tests, has come up INCONCLUSIVE! Hello, stupid fucking smart people! How can you all still CLAIM, alleging through SCIENCE, that Kennewick Man is white? HOW? Truth is...YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA! What was Chatters science? Chatters was watching Star Trek: Next Generation, saw Patrick Stewart, and thus concluded that K-Man was white. How is that for some fucking science smart people? (By the way, the bust Chatters did that is commonly accepted as Kennewick Man was not done using the actual skull nor a replica of the actual skull, it was done, as Chatters admits, as a replica of none other than Patrick Stewart). What has been shown to be desired, here, is a scientific backing of the THEORY that is out there stating that white folks came to this continent first and were killed by us Red Niggers when we invaded from Asia. There is NO scientific evidence for this theory, but the K-Man case will be bantered about by such types as proving this theory true. What if Chatters saw a bald black man, asian, aborigine, indian, or some other race of person on the TV instead of a bald white guy? Have there been any scientific studies done around that theory?

I did something any critical thinking type of person would do. I asked a buddy of mine who was a former Ph.D. candidate in the field of archaeology. Six months from his dissertation, he resigned from the program at the University of Oregon (where he worked with Bonnichsen, the head scientist in charge of the Kennewick Man case) because of what he called the blatant racism around the Kennewick Man case. So I asked him, how can one tell the race of a person by the shape and size of their skull. You know what he told me? He said that skull variance in shape and size VARIES MORE within the group than between the groups. In other words: Skull shape and size within Indian country would vary more amongst its peoples than between those of other nationalities or races. Hmmm. Ask a scientist. Not all of them lie to protect their grant money.

If one reads such books as "Red Earth, White Lies," by Vine Deloria, Jr., one learns that radio-carbon dating is highly inaccurate. It dated a living tree at 9,000 years old. Why? Because the tree was near an area with a high carbon output, an airport. Whaddya know? Science ain't infallible afterall. However, I know you stupid fucking smart people will prove me wrong, enit? Several things come out in the Patrick Stewart...er...I mean Kennewick Man case: The site had already been disturbed at least once prior to Chatters. It was near where boat racing was taking place (high output of carbon). I have no idea but maybe the carbon output of years of aluminum smeltering in the area could have increased the carbon rate. The Columbia River is second only to the river going through Chernobyl in its radioactivity (another factor in "radio"carbon dating), the site being down river from Hanford. Combine these factors with the fact that radio carbon dating is highly inaccurate, and whaddya know, another scientific inconclusive report. However, again, stupid fucking smart people will just accept the dating as fact, even without the corroborating scientific evidence of an actual site report. Again, I asked my former archaeological candidate friend about radio carbon dating. Know what he said, something like, "There is no real way to measure the accuracy of any dating system." Stupid fucking scientists. What the fuck do they know, anyway?

Do I have to mention the millions in grant money that Bonnichsen and others received to do the study, which came up INCONCLUSIVE you stupid fucking smart people? "Gold," my sister mentioned in reading the log of Christopher Columbus, which I keep a copy of. "It's all about the gold!"

I am watching Terry Jones' "Barbarians." It is a documentary about the Barbarians that the Romans slaughtered to further their great and glorious civilization. Turns out, using ACTUAL archaeology, that the "Barbarians" were rather intelligent and human folks with their own cultures and societies. However, they lost the war and their history was thus written by the victor. The victor, of course, stated that these folks were cruel and in-human, and thus needed civilizing. Sound familiar? I think I heard that about Iraq and Afghanistan recently, except the word civilizing wasn't used, I think it was "democratizing." Still, it was/is all really about the gold (not necessarily a scientific study).

You should see the column about the genocide the Romans committed against Dacia (now Romania). Dacia, it turned out was rather civilized by Roman standards and fairly peaceful (unlike the Romans). But they had something the Roman emperor wanted. Can you guess what it was? That's right. GOLD! Thus, the Dacians became Barbarians in the history books and were brutal, cruel, slavers and slaughterers, even though the column in Rome GLORIFIES Roman attrocities committed against the Dacians in order to steal Dacian gold. Huh, whaddya know? This proven through archaeological digs where scientists have done actual science.

So, there is actual science, and then there is Kennewick Man style science.

It doesn't matter what I say here, there will ALWAYS be folks who BELIEVE that Kennewick Man was "proven" white by the great science god and their theory that Whites were here first and that we imperialist Red Niggers wiped them off the face of the earth and stole what is really white land are true. All this proven by what is ACTUALLY INCONCLUSIVE science. But there are so many stupid fucking smart people out there who will tell me otherwise no matter how much I explain the facts of the case.

Then, some asshole with their white guilt will come along and say something like, "Can't we all just get along?" I thought we were. We're not killing or fighting each other. We're not stealing from each other. We aren't trying to conquer each other. We aren't rioting in the streets. We are having a discussion. Folks are telling me their great science god has stated whites were here first and we reds slaughtered them and stole their land. Thus, the more recent whites slaughtering reds is scientifically justifiable and whites no longer have to feel guilty. A complete lie, but that's beside the point, it helps alleviate that great white guilt. And I'm telling them that the science they "believe in" has actually come up inconclusive and that there are tremendous inaccuracies and misinformation happening around the case. It gets rather intense as I present science god believers with scientific fact and they refuse to listen nor investigate. Much easier to believe what they've been told by fellas with lotsa letters behind their names and offices in universities and colleges.

Do you want to know something else? I don't give a fuck about your guilt. Your guilt is not my responsibility, nor the responsibility of Indians, nor the responsibility of the assholes that have and continue (with kinder gentler hands) to slaughter Indians and MANY OTHERS including their fellow whites world wide. As I'm sure my therapist would say: "Your guilt is your responsibility. It is not the responsibility of any one else. You can't control others and others can't control you." Your guilt is not my fault, it is yours, and it is, in my opinion, FUCKING STUPID!

I don't want you to feel guilty, as I've been told face to face by a white person that I do. Guilt is useless. It is stupid. It is an excuse, in my opinion, for you to sit around and feel sorry for yourself instead of actually doing something. Not necessarily something for us reds, maybe even something for women, the poor, other oppressed folks, etc. Fuck your guilt! Not my problem. It's your problem.

I know there are folks who won't stop attempting to feed me the bullshit that Kennewick Man was white and that it has been scientifically proven, even though the ACTUAL science has come up "inconclusive." What has been PROVEN is that there was no science at the site, radio-carbon dating is inaccurate and there are possibly high levels of radiation and carbon at the site with no studies done about that either. The DNA studies on K-Man came back INCONCLUSIVE. So, unless you have ACTUAL scientific evidence surrounding this case, and not just the words of Bonnichsen and Chatters or something you pulled out of your very own anus, I'd like to see the proof. I'd like to see the evidence. Because the evidence I have actually seen states, "INCONCLUSIVE." That is an actual scientific FACT!

I'm hoping that what Ward Churchill stated in an interview on "Mitakuye Oyasin" collective radio program on KBOO radio is true. Ward stated he plans on writing an expose about the world of academia. That should be pretty interesting, and pretty scary to you science god believers.

Here is an interesting quote from Tacitus putting words into the mouth of a Briton back in the good old days of Rome. I gleaned it from Terry Jones' "Barbarians:"

"If you want to rule the world, does it follow that everyone else welcome enslavement? To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name 'freedom.' They make a wilderness and call it peace."

Now, where the hell have I seen that before?

81

Hey, did you know that 81 banks have failed so far this year in our economic recovery? But wait...THERE'S MORE! It is expected that a total of 150-200 banks will fail this year, in our year of recovery. Hmmm!

In other exciting econimic recovery news, the auto industry with its recent boon from the cash for clunkers program is expecting a LARGE DOWNFALL IN SALES for the rest of the year as most folks who would have bought cars anyway during this year did so under the cash for clunkers program.

For more interesting easy to understand analysis about the fallacy of alleged economic recovery, here is an article by Robert Kiyosaki you might find interesting.

The most interesting article of all that I have read this morning is a study as to why people believe big lies, such as economic recovery and Iraq being responsible for 9-11.

Calla Lily

Recent Photos

Leonard Peltier Denied Parole

As you all know by now, I'm sure, Leonard Peltier was denied parole. According to Eric Seitz, Leonard's parole lawyer, the parole board took the FBI's side which basically states you kill an FBI agent, you get life in prison. This comes as no surprise to me. I would have been shocked and surprised had they let him out.

In my opinion, folks whose lives are put on the line for their work should not be considered more valuable than those who don't. Their is always the potential that FBI agents will get killed in their line of duty. They likelyhood is minimal for most, but it is there and they know it. They know they could be putting their lives on the line. Would there be as much fanatical fervor for a rock climber who falls to their death? Would folks want to tear down the rock the climber fell from for killing their friend?

That said, truth is, Leonard didn't kill those agents, but the coppers needed to put someone behind bars and he was the only one they had left. You see, the other two who went through a trial were found not guilty for reasons of self-defense. Truth is, they don't know who killed those agents. Truth is, during the firefight, the folks in the camp assumed the folks shooting at them were goons and had no idea they were FBI agents until after they checked their wallets after they were dead. Truth is, U.S. government supported goons were terrorizing traditionalists like those in the camp at that time. Truth is, there were over 400 federal agents and other heavily armed U.S. government types at the camp within 45 minutes, the first arriving 15 minutes after the first shots. The truth is, the Jumping Bull Ranch where the firefight took place is hours from anywhere so why were all those heavily armed assholes in the area? Truth is, heavily outgunned, 13 of the campers escaped and one was killed. Truth is, the bullets didn't match Leonard's gun. Truth is, Lynn Crooks, the prosecutor, stated that they couldn't prove Leonard did the killing, nor what role he played in it, but someone has to pay for the crime. Truth is, there are millions of crimes that have been committed that someone should pay for and yet no one does, guilty or innocent. There are thousands of crimes many innocent pay for.

You can read all about this in, "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse," by Peter Mathiessen.

I saw a documentary about a Chechen terror action in Russia. It took place at a childrens school. One Chechen rebel/terrorist was standing on a switch in the open. The switch was to a bomb that would go off if he was taken from it. A Russian sniper shot the Chechen, thus setting off the bomb and killing many children. Many of the children who were killed with bullets were killed by Russians in the ensuing firefight. The official Russian story is something like the fella on the switch got tired and stepped off the bomb and the Chechen's then killed all those children despite the fact that a shot was heard and the window in front of him broke prior to him stepping off of the switch. However, the parents of the killed children don't buy the story. They seek out the truth. They want to know who really killed their children and why the Chechen rebel/terrorists did what they did. Of course, it isn't America over there. In the U.S., most governmental stories are accepted without thought. These Russian parents want the truth, unlike in the U.S. The truth is hard, complicated, and can paint the U.S. government and its employees in a rather ugly light. Such as the case of Leonard Peltier and, truthfully, so many others.