Showing posts with label wyoming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wyoming. Show all posts
Reading of Bill Ayers' statement on Cheney Plaza
Several students staged a reading of Bill Ayers' statement, "Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming" this Friday. I happened to walk by, camera phone in hand.
Not all students wanted this event cancelled and are speaking up.
Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming
Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming
William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
April 5, 2010 10:13 AM MDT
On March 30, 2010, officials at the University of Wyoming, citing “security threats” and “controversy,” canceled two talks I was invited to give in early April, one a public lecture entitled “Trudge Toward Freedom: Moral Commitment and Ethical Action,” and the other, a talk to faculty and graduate students called “Teaching and Research in the Public Interest: Solidarity and Identity.” I’d been invited in August, 2009, but one week before I was to travel to Laramie, I was told I had been “disinvited.”
In February, as the University began to publicize my scheduled visit, a campaign to rescind the invitation was initiated on right-wing blogs, accelerating quickly to a wider space where a demonizing and dishonest narrative dominated all discussion. A wave of hateful messages and death threats hit the University, and was joined soon enough by a few political leaders and wealthy donors instructing officials in ominous tones to cancel my visit to the campus. On March 28 an administrator wrote to tell me that the University was receiving vicious e-mails and threatening letters, as well as promises of physical disruption were I to show up. This is becoming drearily familiar to me, as I’ll explain.
A particularly despicable note from Frank Smith who lives in Cheyenne and is active in the Wyoming Patriot Alliance, said, “Maybe someone could take him out and show him the Matthew Sheppard (sic) Commerative (sic) Fence and he could bless it or something.” He was referring to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was tortured and murdered in 1998, left to die tied to a storm fence outside Laramie.
Republican candidate for Governor Ron Micheli released a letter he’d sent to all members of the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees asking them to rescind the invitation. Matt Mead, another gubernatorial candidate, said through a press release that while he is a self-described “fervent believer in free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” that still allowing me to speak would be “reprehensible.” He concluded that I should have “no place lecturing our students.”
I sympathized with the University, and told the folks I was in touch with how sorry I was that all of this was happening to them. I also said that I thought it was a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, and that it would surely pass. Certainly no matter what a couple of thugs threatened to do, I said, I thought that Wyoming law enforcement could get me to the podium, and I would handle myself from there, as I do elsewhere. I said I thought we should stand together and refuse to accede to these kinds of pressures to demonize someone and suppress students’ right to freely engage in open dialogue. After all a public university is not the personal fiefdom or the political clubhouse of the governor, and donors are not permitted to call the shots when it comes to the content or conduct of academic matters. We should not allow ourselves to collapse in fear if a small mob gathers with torches at the gates. I wouldn’t force myself on the University, of course, but I felt that canceling would be terribly unfair to the faculty and students who had invited me, and would send a big message that bullying works. It would be another step down the slippery slope of giving up on the precious ideal of a free university in a free society.
No good. On March 30, 2010 the University posted an announcement of the cancellation of my visit with a long and rambling comment from President Tom Buchanan. He begins with the obligatory assertion that academic freedom is a core principle of the University, but quickly adds that “freedom requires a commensurate dose of responsibility.” We are charged to enact free speech and thought “in concert with mutual respect.”
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There’s no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many long for an education that is transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce schooling to a kind of glorified clerking that passes along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
In February, as the University began to publicize my scheduled visit, a campaign to rescind the invitation was initiated on right-wing blogs, accelerating quickly to a wider space where a demonizing and dishonest narrative dominated all discussion. A wave of hateful messages and death threats hit the University, and was joined soon enough by a few political leaders and wealthy donors instructing officials in ominous tones to cancel my visit to the campus. On March 28 an administrator wrote to tell me that the University was receiving vicious e-mails and threatening letters, as well as promises of physical disruption were I to show up. This is becoming drearily familiar to me, as I’ll explain.
A particularly despicable note from Frank Smith who lives in Cheyenne and is active in the Wyoming Patriot Alliance, said, “Maybe someone could take him out and show him the Matthew Sheppard (sic) Commerative (sic) Fence and he could bless it or something.” He was referring to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was tortured and murdered in 1998, left to die tied to a storm fence outside Laramie.
Republican candidate for Governor Ron Micheli released a letter he’d sent to all members of the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees asking them to rescind the invitation. Matt Mead, another gubernatorial candidate, said through a press release that while he is a self-described “fervent believer in free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” that still allowing me to speak would be “reprehensible.” He concluded that I should have “no place lecturing our students.”
I sympathized with the University, and told the folks I was in touch with how sorry I was that all of this was happening to them. I also said that I thought it was a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, and that it would surely pass. Certainly no matter what a couple of thugs threatened to do, I said, I thought that Wyoming law enforcement could get me to the podium, and I would handle myself from there, as I do elsewhere. I said I thought we should stand together and refuse to accede to these kinds of pressures to demonize someone and suppress students’ right to freely engage in open dialogue. After all a public university is not the personal fiefdom or the political clubhouse of the governor, and donors are not permitted to call the shots when it comes to the content or conduct of academic matters. We should not allow ourselves to collapse in fear if a small mob gathers with torches at the gates. I wouldn’t force myself on the University, of course, but I felt that canceling would be terribly unfair to the faculty and students who had invited me, and would send a big message that bullying works. It would be another step down the slippery slope of giving up on the precious ideal of a free university in a free society.
No good. On March 30, 2010 the University posted an announcement of the cancellation of my visit with a long and rambling comment from President Tom Buchanan. He begins with the obligatory assertion that academic freedom is a core principle of the University, but quickly adds that “freedom requires a commensurate dose of responsibility.” We are charged to enact free speech and thought “in concert with mutual respect.”
Nothing that I did or said in this matter was disrespectful or irresponsible, and yet, in the absence of specific references, readers are led to imagine all kinds of offenses.
The announcement is punctuated with a deep defensiveness: anyone who thinks the University “caved in to external pressure,” Buchanan writes, would be “incorrect.” Anticipating what any casual observer would conclude, he builds a strained and somewhat desperate counter-narrative. Buchanan pleads that UW is “one of the few institutions remaining in today’s environment that garners the confidence of the public,” and that a speech by me would somehow undermine that confidence.
He concludes that “this episode illustrated an opportunity to hear and critically evaluate a variety of ideas thoughtfully, through open, reasoned, and civil debate, it also demonstrates that we must be mindful of the real consequences our actions and decisions have on others.” That’s some sentence, and while it’s impossible to know definitively what he’s referring to as the “episode” (it might be the public lecture itself, but then it could be the cancellation of the lecture, or even the barbarians at the gates threatening to burn the place down, or withhold funds, that would provide the opportunity to critically evaluate matters). It has an unmistakable Orwellian ring: we cancelled that lecture as an expression of our support for lectures! And it’s eerily similar to the classics: We destroyed that village in order to save it! Work will make you free! War is peace!
One of the truly weird qualities of the Buchanan statement is a hole in its center, the deafening silence concerning why the campaign against me was organized in the first place. The reason is familiar to me as noted: in the 1960’s I was a leader of the militant anti-war group, Students for a Democratic Society, and then a founder of the Weather Underground, an organization that carried out dramatic symbolic attacks against several monuments to war and racism, crossed lines of legality, of propriety, and perhaps even of common sense. And then during the 2008 presidential I was unwittingly and unwillingly thrust upon the stage because I had known—like thousands of others—Barack Obama in Chicago. The infamous charge that the candidate was “pallin' around with terrorists,” designed to injure Obama, also demonized me. I’ve been an educator and professor for decades, but the hard right has accelerated the lunacy against thousands of folks— activists and artists, academics and theorists, outspoken radical thinkers—and wherever possible mounted campaigns exactly like the one in Wyoming. Often university officials stand up on principle and resist the howling mob, as they did recently at St. Mary’s in California; sometimes—as at a student-run conference at the University of Pittsburgh in March—they compromise, restricting access to talks and surrounding a speaker with unwanted and unnecessary police protection; sometimes, as in this case, the university turns and runs. It’s a sad sight.
The announcement is punctuated with a deep defensiveness: anyone who thinks the University “caved in to external pressure,” Buchanan writes, would be “incorrect.” Anticipating what any casual observer would conclude, he builds a strained and somewhat desperate counter-narrative. Buchanan pleads that UW is “one of the few institutions remaining in today’s environment that garners the confidence of the public,” and that a speech by me would somehow undermine that confidence.
He concludes that “this episode illustrated an opportunity to hear and critically evaluate a variety of ideas thoughtfully, through open, reasoned, and civil debate, it also demonstrates that we must be mindful of the real consequences our actions and decisions have on others.” That’s some sentence, and while it’s impossible to know definitively what he’s referring to as the “episode” (it might be the public lecture itself, but then it could be the cancellation of the lecture, or even the barbarians at the gates threatening to burn the place down, or withhold funds, that would provide the opportunity to critically evaluate matters). It has an unmistakable Orwellian ring: we cancelled that lecture as an expression of our support for lectures! And it’s eerily similar to the classics: We destroyed that village in order to save it! Work will make you free! War is peace!
One of the truly weird qualities of the Buchanan statement is a hole in its center, the deafening silence concerning why the campaign against me was organized in the first place. The reason is familiar to me as noted: in the 1960’s I was a leader of the militant anti-war group, Students for a Democratic Society, and then a founder of the Weather Underground, an organization that carried out dramatic symbolic attacks against several monuments to war and racism, crossed lines of legality, of propriety, and perhaps even of common sense. And then during the 2008 presidential I was unwittingly and unwillingly thrust upon the stage because I had known—like thousands of others—Barack Obama in Chicago. The infamous charge that the candidate was “pallin' around with terrorists,” designed to injure Obama, also demonized me. I’ve been an educator and professor for decades, but the hard right has accelerated the lunacy against thousands of folks— activists and artists, academics and theorists, outspoken radical thinkers—and wherever possible mounted campaigns exactly like the one in Wyoming. Often university officials stand up on principle and resist the howling mob, as they did recently at St. Mary’s in California; sometimes—as at a student-run conference at the University of Pittsburgh in March—they compromise, restricting access to talks and surrounding a speaker with unwanted and unnecessary police protection; sometimes, as in this case, the university turns and runs. It’s a sad sight.
Of course I wasn’t invited to speak about any of this, and it’s unlikely any of it would have come up without the active campaigning and noisy thunder from the relatively tiny group that is the ultra-right.
I would have focused my talk on the unique characteristics of education in a democracy, an enterprise that rests on the twin pillars of enlightenment and liberation, knowledge and human freedom. Education engages dynamic questions of morality and ethics, identity and location, agency and action. We want to know more, to see more, to experience more in order to do more—to be more competent and powerful and capable in our projects and our pursuits, to be more astute and aware and wide-awake, more fully engaged in the world that we inherit, the world we are simultaneously destined to change.
I would have focused my talk on the unique characteristics of education in a democracy, an enterprise that rests on the twin pillars of enlightenment and liberation, knowledge and human freedom. Education engages dynamic questions of morality and ethics, identity and location, agency and action. We want to know more, to see more, to experience more in order to do more—to be more competent and powerful and capable in our projects and our pursuits, to be more astute and aware and wide-awake, more fully engaged in the world that we inherit, the world we are simultaneously destined to change.
To deny students the right to question the circumstances of their lives, and to wonder how they might be otherwise, is to deny democracy itself.
It’s reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy; surely school leaders in fascist Germany or Albania or Saudi Arabia or apartheid South Africa all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters; they also graduated fine scientists and musicians and athletes, so none of those things differentiate a democratic education from any other.
It’s reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy; surely school leaders in fascist Germany or Albania or Saudi Arabia or apartheid South Africa all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters; they also graduated fine scientists and musicians and athletes, so none of those things differentiate a democratic education from any other.
What makes education in a democracy, at least theoretically, distinct is a commitment to a particularly precious and fragile ideal: every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, and creative force. Every human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights; each is endowed with reason and conscience, and deserves, then, a sense of solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect. Democracy is geared toward participation and engagement, and that points to an educational system in which the fullest development of all is seen as the necessary condition for the full development of each, and conversely, that the fullest development of each is necessary for the full development of all.
In a vibrant and participatory democracy, we might conclude that whatever the wisest and most privileged parents want for their children is precisely the baseline and standard for what the wider community wants for all of its children. If children of privilege get to have small classes, abundant resources, and a curriculum based on opportunities to experiment and explore, ask questions and pursue answers to the furthest limit, if the Obama kids, for example, attend such a school, one where they also find a respected and unionized teacher corps, shouldn’t that be good enough for the kids in public schools everywhere? Any other ideal for our schools, in John Dewey’s words, “is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy.”
We want our students to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. We want them to ask fundamental questions—who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed?—and to pursue answers wherever they might take them. Our efforts focus not on the production of things so much as on the production of fully developed human beings who are capable of controlling and transforming their own lives, citizens who can participate fully in civic life.
Teaching in a democracy encourages students to develop initiative and imagination, the capacity to name the world, to identify the obstacles to their full humanity, and the courage to act upon whatever the known demands. Education in a democracy is always about opening doors and opening minds as students forge their own pathways into a wider world.
How do our schools at every level—K-16—measure up to the democratic ideal?
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There’s no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many long for an education that is transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce schooling to a kind of glorified clerking that passes along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Educators, students, and citizens must press for an education worthy of a democracy, including an end to sorting people into winners and losers through expensive standardized tests which act as pseudo-scientific forms of surveillance; an end to starving public schools—including public higher education—of needed resources and then blaming teachers for dismal outcomes; and an end to the rapidly accumulating “educational debt,” the resources due to communities historically segregated, under-funded and under-served. All children and youth in a democracy, regardless of economic circumstance, deserve full access to richly-resourced classrooms led by caring, qualified and generously compensated teachers.
We might try now to create open spaces in our schools and our various communities where we expect fresh and startling winds to blow, unaccustomed winds that are sure to electrify and confound and fascinate us. We begin by throwing open the windows. We declare that in this corner of this place—in this open space we are constructing together—people will begin to experience themselves as powerful authors of their own narratives, actors in their own dramas, the essential architects and creators of their own lives, participants in a dynamic and inter-connected community-in-the-making. Here they will discover a zillion ways to articulate their own desires and demands and questions. Here everyone will live in search of rather than in accordance with or in accommodation to. Here we will join one another and our democratic futures can be born.
A primary job of teachers and scholars and journalists, and a responsibility of all engaged citizens, is to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of all authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. The growth of knowledge, insight, and understanding depends on that kind of effort, and the inevitable clash of ideas that follows must be nourished and not crushed.
As campuses contract and constrain, the main victims becomes truth, honesty, integrity, curiosity, imagination, freedom itself. When college campuses fall silent, other victims include the high school history teacher on the west side of Chicago or in Laramie or Cheyenne, the English literature teacher in Detroit, or the math teacher in an Oakland middle school. They and countless others immediately get the message: be careful what you say; stay close to the official story; stick to the authorized text; keep quiet with your head covered.
In Brecht’s play Galileo the great astronomer set forth into a world dominated by a mighty church and an authoritarian power: “The cities are narrow and so are the brains,” he declared recklessly. Intoxicated with his own insights, Galileo found himself propelled toward revolution. Not only did his radical discoveries about the movement of the stars free them from the “crystal vault” that received truth insistently claimed fastened them to the sky, but his insights suggested something even more dangerous: that we, too, are embarked on a great voyage, that we are free and without the easy support that dogma provides. Here Galileo raised the stakes and risked taking on the establishment in the realm of its own authority, and it struck back fiercely. Forced to renounce his life’s work under the exquisite pressure of the Inquisition, he denounced what he knew to be true, and was welcomed back into the church and the ranks of the faithful, but exiled from humanity—by his own word. A former student confronted him in the street then: “Many on all sides followed you…believing that you stood, not only for a particular view of the movement of the stars, but even more for the liberty of teaching— in all fields. Not then for any particular thoughts, but for the right to think at all. Which is in dispute.”
This is surely in play today: the right to talk to whomever you please, the right to read and wonder, the right to pursue an argument into uncharted spaces, the right to challenge the state or the church and its orthodoxy in the public square. The right to think at all.
This is some of what I would have discussed in Wyoming, but that will not happen, at least not this week. Canceling this talk underlines the urgency of having multiple and far-ranging speeches, dialogue, and discussions at every level and throughout the public square.
(Article reprinted at the request of the author)
Presenting the last decade in media and film: Part two
Photo: A movie stub from the film "Inglourious Basterds"/Paul Heaberlin, used under Creative Commons licenseThe Underground is proud to present a review of film and media trends of the last decade by local film critic Robert Roten. This is the first part of a four part series. Part two details the movie that best represents the decade.
Robert Roten
Saturday, March 6, 2010 2:13 PM MDT
Saturday, March 6, 2010 2:13 PM MDT
Quentin Tarantino's much-ballyhooed film Inglourious Basterds is a film which reflects the decade of 2000-2010 better than any other. That is one of the reasons I didn't like this film as much as many critics did. It reminded me too much of a decade I would just as soon forget.
It was a decade in which the horrible 9/11 attacks happened, and that was one of the worst days of my life. It was a decade in which it was revealed the United States government condoned practices which resulted in kidnapping, murder and torture. The decade in which America screwed up its best chance to catch Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a misbegotten war in Iraq. It was a decade in which the housing bubble burst and the entire world's economy nearly toppled because strange financial dealings in things called credit default swaps and derivatives, allowed by recent banking deregulation, overturning rules put in place after the great depression 60 years earlier. It was decade in which the U.S. government went from a budget surplus into deep debt. A near depression was caused by deficit spending, financial deregulation, wars and tax cuts. Naturally, some politicians now propose more war, more tax cuts and more deregulation to get us out of the mess they got us into in the first place.
“Inglourious Basterds” fits right into this decade. It shows us that murdering and torturing prisoners of war is not only fun, but it is an effective way to get information and win wars. Either that, or it is a clever satire on what U.S. forces did to prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also re-writes history, showing us a version of World War II in which the Allies win the war years before they really did by the clever tactic of murdering prisoners of war, civilians, and torture. They also win with the help of a high-ranking German officer who betrays his own leaders.
This is not the only time history has been re-written. There are those who say the U.S. would have won the war in Vietnam, if not for the American news media. This has led to increasingly strict military control over the media in subsequent wars. There are also those who say that the depression of the 1930s and the current recession would (or will) go away on their own without any government intervention. They say that deregulation and tax cuts did not cause the collapse of our financial system, or the huge deficits we face and it would all just fix itself, because that is the way capitalism works. It fixes everything by itself in its own magical mysterious ways, including, presumably, health care. It's like Stevie Wonder once sang, “When you believe in things you don't understand ... ” that's just superstition.
History is continually being re-written. If history is, in fact, merely an “agreed-upon fiction,” then Mr. Tarantino's account of World War II is as good as any other, and some do view history that way. However, that isn't what happened. The war went on for years after the time in which the movie was set. The United States did not sanction the death and torture of prisoners of war. They had rules against that, and those rules stayed in effect until the administration of George W. Bush re-wrote the rules in an attempt to legalize torture. This was done despite the fact that torture is known to produce unreliable, sometimes disastrously wrong, information. So why was it done? More on that in the subsequent feature on the representative drama of the decade.
“Inglourious Basterds” not only celebrates American torture and murder, it is a nightmare for the Anti-Defamation League and other organizations trying to hold down the rising tide of anti-Semitism in America and elsewhere. In re-writing history, “Inglourious Basterds” casts Jews in the role of aggressors, as well as victims. This depiction of Jewish aggression aids the rising tide of anti-Semitism both here and abroad. The film reflects the view of Jews held by many in the Muslim world. The film has also been seized upon by anti-Semitic factions on both extremes of the political spectrum to further stir up more hatred against the Jews. When I remarked to a friend that I didn't like the fact that “Inglourious Basterds” makes Americans look worse than the Nazis, my friend replied, “Those weren't Americans, those were Jews.”
The anti-Semitic interpretation of the film fits right in with certain Neo-Nazi views about Jews, fueled by the so-called “Christian Identity” theology (more on that in this essay about the Christian Identity movement and how it has been adopted by elements of the violent radical far right). It also fits in with views of Jews among some elements of the far left wing, the so-called “9/11 Truthers” who hold that the attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” by the U.S. Government, aided or orchestrated by Israel. Like the film itself, this is a re-imagining of history, which is becoming increasingly popular. Abraham H. Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, said 2009 was the worst year for global anti-Semitism he's ever seen in his 40+ years in the organization. Here is further deconstruction of the film along anti-Semitic lines. This is not how I viewed the film when I saw it, but it seems to be a film which lends itself to this interpretation for those who are anti-Semitic.
When America was attacked on 9/11, Americans wanted revenge, and the nation lashed out. People who looked like Muslims (including a Sikh) were murdered by revenge seekers. “Inglourious Basterds” is a movie all about hatred and revenge. One woman in the movie locks an entire crowd of moviegoers into a theater and then sets fire to the theater in revenge for the Nazis killing her family. The squad of soldiers in the film, composed mostly of American Jews, with one anti-Nazi German soldier added, celebrate revenge by killing Germans, scalping the corpses and bashing German soldiers' heads in with a baseball bat and carving swastikas into their foreheads.
Revenge movies are nothing new. There is the “Death Wish” series of films, the “Dirty Harry” series, and more recently, there was “Taken.” People are angry in this country. When President Obama was elected, there was a huge increase in gun sales. The membership in hate groups increased greatly as well. The “Tea Party” movement is brimming with hatred. There are lots of angry people who want revenge and “Inglourious Basterds” dishes it out. The aught years, 2000 through 2009, were dark years in America and this film reflects that darkness.
Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.
Presenting the last decade in media and film
The Underground is proud to present a review of film and media trends of the last decade by local film critic Robert Roten. This is the first part of a four part series. Part one lists the top ten movies of the decade.
The aught decade in review
Robert Roten
Monday, February 8, 2010 12:57 PM MDT
I have never done a decade film roundup before, but I was asked to do one this time and I had some thoughts about how to make it into something more cohesive than just a “best of” list, but I'll throw in a best of list too, since I was asked to do that as well.
We'll start with a “best of” list and then get into the related subjects of which film best exemplifies the decade (“Inglourious Basterds”) and which had the biggest impact on the decade (the TV show “24”). The current decade doesn't end until the end of this year, just like the last century didn't end until the year 2000 ended, but we'll ignore that for the purposes of this article, because most other people do.
The aught decade in review
Robert Roten
Monday, February 8, 2010 12:57 PM MDT
I have never done a decade film roundup before, but I was asked to do one this time and I had some thoughts about how to make it into something more cohesive than just a “best of” list, but I'll throw in a best of list too, since I was asked to do that as well.
We'll start with a “best of” list and then get into the related subjects of which film best exemplifies the decade (“Inglourious Basterds”) and which had the biggest impact on the decade (the TV show “24”). The current decade doesn't end until the end of this year, just like the last century didn't end until the year 2000 ended, but we'll ignore that for the purposes of this article, because most other people do.
The decade's best films, by year
2000: Requiem for a Dream
2001: In the Bedroom
2002: Road to Perdition
2003: Seabiscuit
2004: Kinsey
2005: Crash
2006: United 93
2007: The Lookout
2008: The Visitor
2009: The Hurt Locker
Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.
2000: Requiem for a Dream
2001: In the Bedroom
2002: Road to Perdition
2003: Seabiscuit
2004: Kinsey
2005: Crash
2006: United 93
2007: The Lookout
2008: The Visitor
2009: The Hurt Locker
Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.
Wheatland schools remove anti-hate banners
More on this issue in the next few days. For now, please visit this site and sign the petition. Let the school board know that Wheatland is no place for hate.
- Meg Lanker, Editor
- Meg Lanker, Editor
Docs 4 Patient Care rally in Casper Nov. 21st
This is a slideshow from the Docs 4 Patient Care rally in Casper, Wyo. last Saturday. The Underground was there to interview rally-goers and counter-protesters alike. A recap will follow Friday. A common thread running through the comments of rally attendees was fear. Fear of socialism, fear of government takeovers, fear of out of control spending, or fear for their own families. Stay tuned for The Underground's recap...
Photo slideshow: Cheney International Center dedication
The University of Wyoming dedicated the brand-new Cheney International Center on Sept. 10. The center houses the programs for International Studies and a lounge for international students.
Around 120-200 people gathered to protest the dedication, which generated nationwide recognition and controversy.
Photos: Meg Lanker
All photos remain copyright The Underground and Meg Lanker
Letter to the Editor: An open letter to President Tom Buchanan
Editor:
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
Tea Parties and unity: Where were they?
Photo: Protesters at the 9/12 Rally in Washington D.C., organized by FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Credit - www.huffingtonpost.com and the APTea Parties and unity: Where were they?
Robert Roten
Sunday, September 13, 2009 12:46 PM MDT
Where were they?
The Wyoming 912 Coalition rally at Conwell Park in Casper yesterday was supposed to be about uniting the country and remembering the way it was united on 9/12/01, but it was really about divisiveness and about forgetting what happened on 9/12/01.
The rally was supposed to be about freedom, but it really wasn't about freedom at all. It was about giving up freedom and power, including the right to choose our health care, and giving that power instead to soulless corporations.
People carried signs that read, “Who gave unelected czars authority over us?” and “Freedom did not need change,” according to an article in the Casper Star-Tribune. The article quoted Casper resident Nancy Rinn as saying: “I think the people in Washington are stomping on the Constitution; they're trying to pass laws that are unconstitutional.”
Where were they, these tea party protesters, when George Bush and Dick Cheney were tearing up the constitution? Where were they when the government was listening in to their phone conversations with illegal wiretaps? Where were they when the government was reading their emails? Where were they when the government suspended habeas corpus and threw people into prison, “disappearing” them in the same way Josef Stalin used to make people vanish without a trace? Where were they when the United States government illegally tortured and killed prisoners of war?
Dave Kellett of Powell, president of the Wyoming 912 Coalition, reportedly said at the rally, “We were all Americans.” Kellett added, “There were no Republicans or Democrats, whites, blacks, Hispanics or Arabs,” on that day. The Arabs disagree with that, like the poor guy who was mistaken for an Arab (he was actually an Indian Sikh) and murdered by Americans in that spirit of unity that prevailed after 9/11. The Arabs were immediate suspects in the 9/11 attacks and anyone of Arab descent, or anybody with dark skin who looked like an Arab, was in for a tough time after the attacks. Arabs in America are still not above suspicion.
Just ask Cat Stevens about that supposed post-9/11 unity of Americans. They wouldn't even let the “Peace Train” singer back in the country. Judging by what I saw on TV of the crowd in Casper yesterday, there weren't a lot of blacks, Hispanics or Arabs among the tea-party people there, or at the big march in Washington, either. It is pretty much a pure white, far right, Fox News-watching bunch. Dave Kellet's idea of national unity is not what I'd call “fair and balanced.”
That's not the only thing about the post-9/11 climate the tea party people seem to have forgotten. They forgot the nation was united behind their president, George Bush, despite the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch. They must have been watching Fox News back then when wingnuts like Bill O'Reilly were saying that anybody who criticized President Bush was a traitor, or words to that effect. Fox News and the rest of the right-leaning news establishment bullied anyone who dared criticize our beloved President George Bush, and they said he did nothing wrong. They still claim he was damned near perfect to this very day.
Where were these Tea Party people when the Bush Administration let the country down and failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks? After all, it was pretty spectacular failure that would seem impossible to top, but Bush managed to do just that, with Katrina and the Iraq War. Through all those disasters, all those deficits, all those illegal acts, all the loss of all those personal freedoms, the Tea Party people kept silent. Where were they?
So why all those anti-Obama signs at the Wyoming 912 Coalition rally? Where is that old spirit of unity? What happened to that unity where everybody stood behind the president and you were a called a traitor if you did not? Obama has only been in power a few months and has yet to initiate any disasters like the ones that Bush did on an almost monthly basis. On the basis of protecting the country alone, he's already 100 percent better than Bush was. How could they forget the unity of 912 on this occasion? How could they keep quiet when this nation was literally falling apart and only now, when the country is starting to get back on track, they suddenly want to protest their very own president?
Why? What has gotten them stirred up? Health care reform? They actually like the fact that their insurance company can drop them from coverage when they get sick? They like the fact that they have to stick with a job they don't like, or face losing their coverage or paying sky-high COBRA payments? Do they enjoy being jerked around by insurance companies that are not held accountable by anyone, including their own government? They ought to be protesting outside insurance companies, not protesting the guy who is trying to fix this mess. The Tea Party people act as if they are being directly paid by the health insurance industry to put a stop to health care reform.
The Wyoming 912 Coalition people are also very concerned about the federal budget deficit. They are afraid they will have to pay for health care reform with higher taxes, and that might be true, but where were they when the Reagan Administration and two Bush Administrations ran up deficits in the trillions? Where were they when the Bush Administration cut trillions of dollars of taxes on the wealthy, and started two wars at the same time? Where were they when the Bush Administration started a war in Iraq that would end up costing trillions of dollars, and paid for it with deficit spending?
The Tea Party people cheered when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at President Obama, and they put that proudly on their signs, even though Wilson, not Obama, is the liar here. Where were they when President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq? None of them had the courage to stand up and call President Bush a liar, even though he was. Fox News, the rest of the media and most of the American people just went along for the ride. Now they stand up, but what do they really stand for?
Now, after more than 4,000 soldiers were killed and trillions of dollars have been wasted in the Iraq war, now, they finally stand up for principles they completely abandoned for the past 20 years. Now, they stand up to avoid paying for the health care of poor people. That's not what you'd call noble, or Christian, or Muslim. They are willing to finance the death of hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars for war without complaint, but they don't want to spend a nickel to pay for the health care of needy citizens of the United States of America, including those wounded fighting for this nation. Shame on them.
The tea party people weren't concerned when our soldiers died for nothing. They weren't concerned about a war that made this nation less secure, rather than more secure. They weren't concerned with the mounting deficits caused by deeply irresponsible government fiscal policies. They weren't concerned when the government did little to avert the Hurricane Katrina disaster and did less to alleviate the suffering of Americans afterward. The tea party people were silent then.
Now that the nation has been brought back from the brink of another Great Depression, thanks to government fiscal intervention, now that the United States is once again gaining some respect in the world for more rational foreign policies, after being a laughing stock and a pariah for the past eight years, now, the tea party people are protesting. They want to get rid of Obama and all he stands for. They want to return to the good old days of George W. Bush, the good old days of letting insurance companies decide who will live and who will die.
God help us all if they get what they are wishing for.
Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: In defense of UW protest
Editor:
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
Letter to the Editor: No ethics lesson in Buchanan's words
Dear Editor:
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Faculty should not keep silent on Cheney donation
Editor -
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Spotlight: Wyo. State House Rep. Pete Illoway
Spotlighting Wyoming’s State Congressmen: Wyoming House Representative Pete IllowayMeg Lanker
Friday, August 28, 2009 2:54 PM MDT
Wyoming State House Representative Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne believes it’s time for Wyoming to assert its sovereignty to the federal government granted under the Tenth Amendment.
“We don’t have much input in Washington compared to larger states, but we need to let the federal government know that we matter as a state,” Illoway said. “The federal government has run amok and I feel Wyoming should stand along with other states who believe the same as we do.”
Illoway authored a state sovereignty resolution similar to those passed in other states recently. The bill requests that Congress “cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.”
State sovereignty resolutions similar to the one drafted by Illoway gained popularity in recent years, particularly with conservative legislators who feel the federal government has expanded to the point of encroaching on individual states’ rights.
The resolution is non-binding but can be officially entered in the U.S. congressional record. Illoway said, “Sometimes resolutions work and sometimes they’re ignored, but we won’t know what will happen unless we make our views known.”
The resolution contains a paragraph naming specific federal laws that “constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous,” including the Real ID Act and the Endangered Species Act. Illoway said those specific laws were added by Governor Dave Freudenthal at the suggestion of Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg.
According to Illoway, Wyoming should not be entirely disconnected from the federal government. Wyoming received federal stimulus funding for infrastructure improvement projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
“The money WYDOT [Wyoming Department of Transportation] received went to shovel-ready projects which put Wyoming people to work,” said Illoway. “If Wyoming didn’t take the money, it would have gone somewhere else.”
Illoway was recently attacked by the Wyoming Patriot Alliance as not supporting sovereignty “because he believes in it.” The Wyoming Patriot Alliance's website describes the group as “concerned citizens that have banded together and want to hold Government (at all levels) accountable for their actions.” They also claim no allegiance to political parties and state: “We've adopted the 9 Principles and 12 Values from Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project because they are a great starting point.”
Illoway met with several individuals at the request of Janie White, a constituent of his who is a member of Wyoming Patriot Alliance and owner of the group’s website. According to Illoway, White told him they wished to discuss the state sovereignty resolution.
He said he told White and those present at the meeting his reasons for sponsoring the resolution but White abruptly switched gears into asking him to support a copy of the federal Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) being inserted into Wyoming’s constitution.
Social conservatives in Wyoming have attempted to get the DOMA into the Wyoming constitution for many years. The latest effort in 2008 was House Joint Resolution 17 which failed on the House floor with 25 members voting “aye” and 35 members voting “nay.” Illoway voted against the bill.
The heavily-debated resolution read: “A Joint Resolution proposing to amend the Wyoming Constitution by creating a new section specifying that a marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in Wyoming” – fundamentally stating that Wyoming will not recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state.
Illoway said he had no warning White and the others wanted to discuss a DOMA resolution and characterized the meeting as “an absolute ambush.” Illoway said, “I was told we were there to discuss the state sovereignty resolution and nothing else. I feel these are two separate issues, and when I tried to explain this to Mrs. White, she became defensive.”
White wrote a post about the meeting on Wyoming Patriot Alliance’s website later. “He [Illoway] said he will NOT discuss marriage between one man and one woman because he doesn't believe in it,” she said.
Illoway said this assertion by White is false. He disagreed with HJ 17 because Wyoming already has a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman – HJ 17 would add the extra piece of not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
He also disputed the necessity of HJ 17 – Wyoming recognizes Common Law marriages from other states, so HJ 17 would single out one type of marriage for non-recognition. “We have a statute already that says marriage is between a man and a woman period – we don’t need to go any further. Gay people are people too. They have the right to exist like the rest of us,” Illoway said.
White also criticized Illoway as “pro-abortion” and said his “positions on abortion, gay marriage and other conservatives [sic] values did NOT coincide with the base.”
In a statement to The Underground, Illoway said he is not “pro-abortion” but is pro-choice. “I am pro-choice. I have been for years – this is nothing new,” he said. “No one is ever pro-abortion. Abortion is never something anyone wishes to happen.”
Illoway emailed White to clarify his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion. White pasted the email exchange below the original post about her meeting with Illoway. In the exchange White said, “If Ms. Lone and I believed I had mis-stated[sic] your comments, I would have been glad to retract but as you can see, and with the witnesses of that meeting, I have not and will not.”
On the Wyoming Patriot Alliance’s website, White said, “I don't have to work with Legislators and I definitely don't work for them, they work for me.”
Illoway disagrees with this notion and said the best way for constituents to get legislation passed is to work with legislators to reach common ground. “The town halls are a good example,” Illoway said. “It’s good for people to get involved, but nothing gets done by screaming at the people in office. There’s a level of respect needed.”
White did not respond to a request for comment from The Underground.
Illoway came to Wyoming in the early 1960s and was elected to the Wyoming State House to represent House District 42 in 1998. He previously served as the Vice President of Cheyenne LEADS (Cheyenne-Laramie County Corporation for Economic Development).
As the Wyoming legislature prepares to returns in 2010 to a rapidly changing economy, The Underground will put the spotlight on members of Wyoming’s House and Senate. Rep. Pete Illoway can be reached through his website, www.peteilloway.com
Freudenthal supports state sovereignty resolution
Freudenthal supports state sovereignty resolution
Meg Lanker
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:35 PM MDT
update: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:12 PM MDT
Gov. Dave Freudenthal supports reminding Washington D.C. that Wyoming is a sovereign state under the Tenth Amendment.
The resolution was authored by Wyoming State House Representative Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne and transmitted to the Wyoming Legislature’s Management Council July 29. Freudenthal said, in a memo attached to the resolution on his website, “From time to time we all wonder whether sending resolutions to Washington D.C. really does any good. On the other hand, it’s nice to at least get our view on the record.”
The proposed resolution is similar to resolutions adopted by other states in recent years, including Oklahoma and Michigan. The movement for states to declare sovereignty has gained momentum with the election of President Barack Obama. Much of the momentum stems from a belief, that in recent years, the federal government has gained too much power and has become what The Tenth Amendment Center calls “an oppressive central [federal] government.”
The Tenth Amendment Center, according to its website, “works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education.” The center also “serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power.”
On the website, Thomas Grady, the founder of the Missouri Sovereignty Project, said, “It was the Bill of Rights’ final amendment, as if our Founding Fathers said, ‘By the grace of God, if the first nine amendments don’t prevent tyranny, the 10th will do so.’”
The website also features a boilerplate template for a suggested Tenth Amendment resolution for citizens to send to their governors and state legislators. Illoway’s proposed resolution follows the template closely, declaring “many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Illoway said Tuesday he decided to pursue a state sovereignty resolution to stand up for Wyoming's rights as a state and cited a primary reason for the resolution as a "federal government run amock."
"A majority of the States are pursuing similar resolutions and even though Wyoming has a budget session coming up, I felt we needed to pursue a sovereignty bill and stand along with other states who believe the same as we do," said Illoway.
In an interview Aug. 12 with Andrew Simons, host of Laramie’s political talk show Checks and Balances, U.S. House Representative Cynthia Lummis said she supports resolutions like these and is a “big advocate” of state sovereignty.
“The states are the most important units of government in this country,” Lummis said. “The federal government didn’t create the states. The states created the federal government.”
Simons supports Illoway's resolution as well, but had his own thoughts about the governor's support of state sovereignty.
“Governor Freudenthal supports this resolution to potentially get around current federal regulation on energy development and wolf management – not to mention currying favor with Republican voters after supporting President Obama’s candidacy,” said Simons. “He’s trying rebuild his base for a 2010 gubernatorial campaign.”
Freudenthal has not ruled out a run for governor in 2010, although he is considered term-limited. However, the Wyoming Supreme Court invalidated legislative term limits in 2004, leaving the opportunity for Freudenthal to challenge the constitutionality of his own term limits to run for re-election in 2010.
According to the Washington Post Feb. 16, when asked about the possibility that Freudenthal would seek a third term, his spokeswoman Cara Eastwood said, "When the governor has something to announce, he will announce it."
Recently, Wyoming citizens have been ramping up efforts to see Wyoming declare itself a sovereign state. At the Wyoming State Fair in Douglas, visitors were welcomed back to their cars with a newspaper published by an organization aligned with the national “Tea Party” movement. The paper accused “Gov. Dave” of supporting tyranny for not coming out against the Real ID Act and called for a Tenth Amendment resolution.
The Real ID Act, enacted under former President George W. Bush’s directive, aims to curtail terrorism by instituting a national ID program. In the state sovereignty resolution supported by Freudenthal, the Real ID Act is mentioned as one of the federal laws “where the constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous.”
Other federal laws mentioned were the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act – all areas where Wyoming has seen federal conflict in regards to wolf and sage grouse management, energy development and Forest Service policies.
Illoway said the specific laws mentioned in the resolution as examples of the federal government overstepping its authority were added by Freudenthal at the suggestion of Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg.
Freudenthal and his staff did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Meg Lanker
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:35 PM MDT
update: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:12 PM MDT
Gov. Dave Freudenthal supports reminding Washington D.C. that Wyoming is a sovereign state under the Tenth Amendment.
The resolution was authored by Wyoming State House Representative Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne and transmitted to the Wyoming Legislature’s Management Council July 29. Freudenthal said, in a memo attached to the resolution on his website, “From time to time we all wonder whether sending resolutions to Washington D.C. really does any good. On the other hand, it’s nice to at least get our view on the record.”
The proposed resolution is similar to resolutions adopted by other states in recent years, including Oklahoma and Michigan. The movement for states to declare sovereignty has gained momentum with the election of President Barack Obama. Much of the momentum stems from a belief, that in recent years, the federal government has gained too much power and has become what The Tenth Amendment Center calls “an oppressive central [federal] government.”
The Tenth Amendment Center, according to its website, “works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education.” The center also “serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power.”
On the website, Thomas Grady, the founder of the Missouri Sovereignty Project, said, “It was the Bill of Rights’ final amendment, as if our Founding Fathers said, ‘By the grace of God, if the first nine amendments don’t prevent tyranny, the 10th will do so.’”
The website also features a boilerplate template for a suggested Tenth Amendment resolution for citizens to send to their governors and state legislators. Illoway’s proposed resolution follows the template closely, declaring “many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Illoway said Tuesday he decided to pursue a state sovereignty resolution to stand up for Wyoming's rights as a state and cited a primary reason for the resolution as a "federal government run amock."
"A majority of the States are pursuing similar resolutions and even though Wyoming has a budget session coming up, I felt we needed to pursue a sovereignty bill and stand along with other states who believe the same as we do," said Illoway.
In an interview Aug. 12 with Andrew Simons, host of Laramie’s political talk show Checks and Balances, U.S. House Representative Cynthia Lummis said she supports resolutions like these and is a “big advocate” of state sovereignty.
“The states are the most important units of government in this country,” Lummis said. “The federal government didn’t create the states. The states created the federal government.”
Simons supports Illoway's resolution as well, but had his own thoughts about the governor's support of state sovereignty.
“Governor Freudenthal supports this resolution to potentially get around current federal regulation on energy development and wolf management – not to mention currying favor with Republican voters after supporting President Obama’s candidacy,” said Simons. “He’s trying rebuild his base for a 2010 gubernatorial campaign.”
Freudenthal has not ruled out a run for governor in 2010, although he is considered term-limited. However, the Wyoming Supreme Court invalidated legislative term limits in 2004, leaving the opportunity for Freudenthal to challenge the constitutionality of his own term limits to run for re-election in 2010.
According to the Washington Post Feb. 16, when asked about the possibility that Freudenthal would seek a third term, his spokeswoman Cara Eastwood said, "When the governor has something to announce, he will announce it."
Recently, Wyoming citizens have been ramping up efforts to see Wyoming declare itself a sovereign state. At the Wyoming State Fair in Douglas, visitors were welcomed back to their cars with a newspaper published by an organization aligned with the national “Tea Party” movement. The paper accused “Gov. Dave” of supporting tyranny for not coming out against the Real ID Act and called for a Tenth Amendment resolution.
The Real ID Act, enacted under former President George W. Bush’s directive, aims to curtail terrorism by instituting a national ID program. In the state sovereignty resolution supported by Freudenthal, the Real ID Act is mentioned as one of the federal laws “where the constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous.”
Other federal laws mentioned were the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act – all areas where Wyoming has seen federal conflict in regards to wolf and sage grouse management, energy development and Forest Service policies.
Illoway said the specific laws mentioned in the resolution as examples of the federal government overstepping its authority were added by Freudenthal at the suggestion of Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg.
Freudenthal and his staff did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Rep. Lummis looking forward to August recess
Rep. Lummis looking forward to August District Work Period Meg Lanker
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:21 PM MDT
The U.S. House of Representatives recessed Monday for August, but for Rep. Cynthia Lummis-R, Wyo., it’s anything but a break.
The website for the U.S. House calls the break the “Summer District Work Period,” and bills it in news releases as a chance for representatives to meet with constituents, hold town hall meetings, and gear up for the next session.
Lummis said in an interview with The Underground Friday she is looking forward to meeting with constituents in Wyoming and discussing issues important to them. “I have, I believe, six town hall meetings, multiple interviews with the press and many constituent meetings,” she said.
With a vote on health care reform looming large in September, Lummis is using August to prepare for discussions on the House floor. Lummis does not support the health care plan the Democrats are proposing, and instead, supports the ten-point plan set forth by Sen. Mike Enzi R-Wyo.
“Sen. Enzi’s ten steps, which are laid out in bullet points on his website, are, in fact, extremely comprehensive, well thought-out, well fleshed-out, and have a lot of support on a bipartisan basis here in Congress,” Lummis said. “Sen. Enzi’s work is highly respected, and is based on years of experience.”
According to Enzi’s website, the “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America” include providing cross-state pooling to reduce health care costs and increase accessibility for small business owners, individuals, and families; increasing affordable options for families to purchase health insurance through a standard tax deduction; and emphasizing preventive benefits.
Lummis is using the time in August to read the entire proposal authored by House Democrats and said the proposal is a “1000-page plus” bill. She said she has not seen what it covers in its entirety, but said, “I do know this – it creates at least 31 new government agencies, and has a health commissioner that will decide whether the plan I have meets their criteria.”
Lummis is concerned about portability of health insurance and potential penalties to employers. “One of the employers I talked to in Wyoming, a physician’s office, went through the Democrats’ bill and found out it would be cheaper for them to pay the eight percent penalty and shift their own employees onto the government plan rather than provide the insurance they have now,” said Lummis. “The President’s express notion that if you like your insurance you can keep it is not embodied in the Democrats’ bill.”
Proponents of the health care plan disagree, including Milt Shook, a former Washington D.C. paralegal-turned-author who read the entire bill and purports to debunk many of the Republican Party’s statements on the health care bill on his website. Referring to the eight percent penalty, Shook said, “The section [on penalties to employers] only refers to any employer who doesn't offer any insurance to his employees. If they offer either private insurance or the public insurance, they do not have to pay the 8%, regardless of the size of their payroll.”
However, if the employer’s payroll is over $400,000 a year, the eight percent payroll tax would kick in, potentially affecting small business owners who may find it cheaper to pull the current insurance and not offer the government’s health care public option. In this case, an employee could enroll in the public option and pay an amount indexed to the employee’s current yearly pay.
Lummis is also worried about whether or not people could keep their current insurance in all circumstances. “Yesterday [Thursday], in the House Energy and Resources committee, a number of Republicans offered amendments to that bill to make sure the bill allows you to keep your insurance if you like it, and all of those amendments were defeated,” she said. “I have serious reservations, and am in fact, opposed to the Democrats’ health care bill as it is written now and am very concerned about the notion of a public plan and how it could bring about lower quality health care and health care rationing.”
Lummis acknowledged people are seeing somewhat of a rationing due to high health care costs, but said the plan will bring about “more serious rationing on a broader level.” She said, “My big concern is that it will not elevate opportunities for those who cannot currently afford insurance, but will instead decrease opportunities for affordable health care for those who do have insurance.”
Lummis also supports a review of the reimbursements doctors and hospitals receive under current Medicare and Medicaid fee schedules. “I know from visiting with Wyoming hospitals and Wyoming doctors that they are under-reimbursed,” said Lummis. “It’s critical, that for Medicare to perform properly, that we level the playing field in order to ensure the long-term health of the Medicare system.”
She said that fixing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements is particularly important for Wyoming, since some providers have stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid – reducing the number of already limited providers available to patients.
“I want our doctors and our hospitals reimbursed at rates that will allow them to continue to take Medicare patients as Wyoming people age, as our population ages,” said Lummis. “Health care reform will be my highest priority when I return in the fall.”
Numerous energy issues are on the table as well. Lummis opposed the cap-and-trade bill, called the “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” and was uneasy about promises made by Democrats in the House that the bill would not increase energy costs for the average consumer.
Lummis emphasized the need for Washington to look to Wyoming for energy resources including solar power and uranium for nuclear power. “We are number one in uranium reserves and I am a big supporter of nuclear energy. It is the most abundant, zero-emissions source of energy our country has,” she said.
She cited large numbers of nuclear plants in Europe as an example of implementation that could take place in the U.S. “Currently nuclear power produces 20 percent of the electricity in this country, and without it, we will not be able to meet the kinds of standards that are required under the cap-and-trade bill,” she said.
Democrats and Republicans alike in Wyoming – and the rest of the U.S. – worry about storing nuclear waste as a by-product of a nuclear power plant, but Lummis supports other renewable energy resources such as solar and wind power, calling solar power an “efficient energy source” that Wyoming could lead the way in developing. She said, “Our moderate, cooler temperatures allow solar panels to operate more efficiently. That’s an area where I see tremendous growth for Wyoming.”
Lummis acknowledged the need for clean energy development to reduce air pollution, especially in urban areas. “Urban communities like Los Angeles do have higher rates of asthma, and that’s tied to things like automobile emissions. Whether or not a person believes in global warming, these issues must be addressed.”
She is working with other legislators to draft and sponsor numerous bills to benefit Wyoming residents. Before the House recess, Lummis introduced the “Statewide Public Television Access Act,” which will allow DISH Network subscribers in Wyoming to have access to Wyoming Public Television.
Many subscribers in Wyoming receive their public television from Denver, Salt Lake City, or Rapid City, SD. According to Lummis, federal law prohibits satellite television subscribers from receiving Wyoming Public Television, but this new bill would attempt to change that.
Lummis cited the bill as an example of reaching across the aisle in an environment that she said is divided along party lines. She is the lead sponsor, with three Democrats and three Republicans co-sponsoring the bill on public television access.
Wyoming PBS features programming relevant to the state. According to the Wyoming PBS website, one popular series, Main Street, Wyoming, highlights the uniqueness of Wyoming’s communities, history and people. During the election cycles, Wyoming PBS also features local candidate forums and debates – unavailable to those subscribers who have DISH network.
“Over half of the Wyoming counties do not get access to Wyoming Public Television. And, I believe, 18 other states are in the same boat as Wyoming – where you cannot get your own public television within the four corners of your state,” Lummis said. “When you have so many Wyoming residents getting their public television from neighboring states, it’s not possible to have a cohesive community dialogue.”
Lummis also pointed out the bill would allow for easier access to local news, weather and sports and said it did not make sense that residents don’t already receive Wyoming PBS.
August has already been packed full by Lummis’ staff with what she called a “near-campaign schedule.” She said, “I just can’t wait to be back home in Wyoming. This will be a great opportunity to get feedback from the people I represent, so when I do come back in September, I have wise counsel and good Wyoming common-sense to carry back with me.”
However, Lummis does plan to take some time to relax after a grueling House session full of discussions on controversial issues by going fishing. After describing her schedule, she chucked and said, “I would just love to be able to stand in a stream and drown a fly.”
The U.S. House will reconvene after Labor Day in September.
Letter to the Editor: Nuclear weapons still pose a threat
Editor:
When the atomic bomb came on the scene, we immediately gave the worst invention ever conceived to a bunch of sociopaths including the Dulles brothers in America and Stalin in Russia. Even more sociopaths, including Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea have the bomb now. All we need is a suicidal sociopath like Hitler to finally bring the curtain down. I thought Bush, Cheney, Putin or Israel might win the suicidal sociopath race this time.
It takes between 50 to 100 nuclear bursts to kick off a nuclear Winter (50 degrees below zero for 100 years). Voila! At last a nuclear exchange will have solved all our resources, population, and economic problems. When has mankind ever seriously dealt with any sociopath without substituting one for another. The truth is that we just love our liars, bullies, and crooks.
When nukes arrived on the scene, no thinking person ever thought we would last another sixty years. So far, nothing less than a miracle has occurred. We are still here today largely due to sheer dumb luck.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
When the atomic bomb came on the scene, we immediately gave the worst invention ever conceived to a bunch of sociopaths including the Dulles brothers in America and Stalin in Russia. Even more sociopaths, including Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea have the bomb now. All we need is a suicidal sociopath like Hitler to finally bring the curtain down. I thought Bush, Cheney, Putin or Israel might win the suicidal sociopath race this time.
It takes between 50 to 100 nuclear bursts to kick off a nuclear Winter (50 degrees below zero for 100 years). Voila! At last a nuclear exchange will have solved all our resources, population, and economic problems. When has mankind ever seriously dealt with any sociopath without substituting one for another. The truth is that we just love our liars, bullies, and crooks.
When nukes arrived on the scene, no thinking person ever thought we would last another sixty years. So far, nothing less than a miracle has occurred. We are still here today largely due to sheer dumb luck.
John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.
It was the coroner, in the bedroom, with the hydrocodone
Photo: Former Natrona County Chief Deputy Coroner Gary Hazen appears in court in Feb. after being charged with 10 felonies. Judge Michael Patchen set his bond at $2,500. (Tim Kupsick, Star-Tribune, trib.com)Abuse of trust commands stiffer punishment
Meg Lanker
It's not often that I advocate for jail sentences for drug offenders, especially first-time drug offenders. I am an advocate of counseling and drug rehabilitation, either inpatient or outpatient. But in the case of former Natrona County Chief Deputy Coroner Gary Hazen, I'm willing to make an exception.
Hazen recently pleaded guilty to possession of hydrocodone and methadone in a Casper court after striking a plea bargain brokered by Special Prosecutor Scott Homar, leading to a suspended prison sentence of four to six years and 10 years of supervised probation - a bargain for sure, considering Hazen faced a maximum of 51 years in prison if convicted on all charges. He is currently free on $2,500 bond awaiting sentencing, even though he was originally charged with 10 felonies.
According to the Casper Star-Tribune, the drugs the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) confiscated from a hidden room under the stairs of Hazen's home were:
- 399 grams of codeine: medical use - 15 to 60 milligrams every three to six hours as needed for pain
- 32 grams of diazepam (Valium): medical use - 2 to 10 milligrams three to four times daily as needed for anxiety
- 134 grams of oxycodone: medical use - 5-15 milligrams every 4-6 hours as needed for pain
- 65 grams of propoxyphene (Darvon): medical use - 65-100 milligrams, depending on form of drug, every 4 hours as needed for pain
- 9 grams of chlordiazepoxide (Novapam/Librium): medical use - 5 to 25 milligrams three or four times daily as needed for anxiety
- 350 grams of liquid morphine: medical use - 5 to 30 milligrams every 4 hours as needed for pain
- 10 grams of methadone: medical use - 5 to 20 milligrams every four to eight hours as needed for pain
Hazen had no legal prescriptions for any of these substances, nor any explanation for his possession of these drugs. He admitted to stealing the drugs from the homes of the deceased while acting in his official capacity as chief deputy coroner at death scenes. According to the Tribune, he also allegedly took pornography and cash, but was not charged with anything related to those items.
Hazen was a police officer in Casper from 1978 to 1998 and a campus supervisor for the Natrona County School District from 1998 to 2002. He served as chief deputy coroner from 2002 until he was fired last December. This means Hazen worked the city of Casper in some official capacity and with the public's trust for 30 years.
Wednesday, the Tribune's editorial board wrote that Judge Peter Arnold should reject Hazen's plea agreement. I agree. Hazen was not a hapless college kid caught with a few joints. He was a public official who admitted to stealing from the homes of the recently deceased to feed his own addiction time and time again.
Drug addicts will do despicable, desperate things in order to achieve the next high. But rarely is such a gross abuse of public trust brought to light. Hazen was entrusted to perform his job by the public and failed. Indeed, eight other charges filed were dismissed with the deal, including two counts of failing to account for prescription drugs received by virtue of his office.
By virtue of his office, Hazen is held to a higher public standard. By virtue of his office, both as chief deputy coroner and as a former police office, Hazen knew exactly what he was doing and the consequences of abusing the drugs he spirited away from death scenes for his personal use. And, by virtue of his office, Hazen should not get any special breaks.
This may not be the case - Special Prosecutor Scott Homar said, "I looked at Mr. Hazen's case just as I would look at any other case that was similarly situated in order to determine what I thought was a fair and equitable plea agreement."
But that comment begs the question - what drug offenders do deserve jail time? I highly doubt the prosecution would give the same deal to a meth addict. The key words are "similarly situated case."
Prescription drug addiction is a classier, more sociably acceptable form of drug abuse. A doctor prescribes hydrocodone to a patient, the patient takes the slip(s) to a pharmacist (or three), pays for the drug and repeats the cycle. The addict smokes meth at home, meets the dealer in shadowy location, pays for the drug with welfare and repeats the cycle, so says the stereotype.
The public believes those who work in government should be held to a higher standard - after all, these are the people who are supposed to keep order, uphold the law and maintain public safety. Hazen violated all these expectations and tarnished the reputation of the coroner's office and the police department. The damage done goes beyond himself and cannot be quantified. This alone deserves a higher standard of punishment.
Any punishment must also include rehabilitation for a rather insidious addiction. I suggest the Wyoming Department of Corrections Intensive Treatment Unit (ITU) at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, which was established, according to the Department of Corrections, "to provide an opportunity for behavioral change to inmates whose lives and criminal activity are characterized by the use of substances."
Hazen's behavior was certainly characterized by his use of substances and his long service to the city of Casper is marred by a rather inglorious end. I am not advocating for a 51-year prison term. However, I am advocating for intensive treatment while incarcerated, and then a term of probation. How much of a chance does Hazen have of successfully completing probation without treatment?
I join the Tribune in imploring Judge Arnold to seriously consider the ramifications of accepting this sugar-coated plea bargain. The costs far outweigh any "bargain." This deal reinforces the idea that public officials get favorable treatment and that possession of prescription drugs is not as serious as possession of any other drug.
I argue that Hazen's actions constituted opportunistic grave-robbing and should be treated as such - no special deals. The virtual pharmacy hidden under his stairs represents a pattern of repeated criminal acts over a period of time, not petty drug possession, and must be treated as nothing less.
By virtue of his office, Hazen's brazen behavior commands nothing less.
Meg Lanker is the editor of The Underground and can be contacted at meglanker@gmail.com
(All dosage information taken from the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) Consumer Drug Information database)
